1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant shall be dismissed.

2. Of the land size of 641 square meters in the 641 square meters in the Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, the annexed map No. 1-8, 13-16

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff completed a share transfer registration on October 17, 201 with respect to the share of 9/11 out of the instant land on the same day on the grounds of sale on October 17, 2014.

B. On December 31, 1975, the successor intervenor completed the transfer registration on December 1, 201, on the remainder 2/11 of the above land owned by the Defendant.

C. The Plaintiff and the succeeding Intervenor did not reach an agreement on the land division method.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. An ex officio lawsuit claiming partition of co-owned property is an essential co-litigation in which a co-owner who claims partition as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit against the defendant becomes the plaintiff and all other co-owners shall be the co-defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da78556, Jan. 29, 2014). Where part of co-owners’ share is transferred to a third party while the lawsuit regarding partition of co-owned property is pending, and the previous party who transferred co-owned share remains without withdrawal, even though the transferee of the co-owned share participates in the lawsuit regarding partition of co-owned property, in which the co-owned share is transferred

As seen earlier, on December 1, 2016, when the lawsuit of this case was pending with respect to all shares of 2/11 owned by the Defendant, the registration of transfer of shares was completed in the name of the succeeding intervenor, and the Defendant is no longer co-owner of the land of this case. As such, the part against the Defendant, who is not a party standing, is unlawful.

3. Determination as to the claim against the succeeding intervenor

A. According to the facts acknowledged above, the plaintiff and the successor intervenor shared the land of this case. Thus, one of the co-owners is co-owner's succeeding intervenors pursuant to Article 268 (1) of the Civil Act.