1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for partition of co-owned property against the Defendants is dismissed.

2. All Pyeongtaek-si E.

1. Of the instant lawsuit, we examine the part of the claim for partition of co-owned property against the Defendants ex officio.

According to Articles 82(3) and 30 of the Civil Procedure Act, in case of participation in acceptance, the parties prior to such participation may withdraw from the lawsuit subject to the consent of the other party.

In addition, since the co-owner who filed a partition lawsuit becomes the plaintiff and the other co-owners become the co-defendant, in case where the whole share of some co-owners is transferred to a third party during the lawsuit as to the partition lawsuit, and the previous party who transferred the co-owned share remains without withdrawal even though the co-owner participated in the lawsuit on the partition of co-owned property, the part concerning the previous party who did not withdraw is unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Da50293 Decided February 18, 2016). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following can be acknowledged based on the health team, records, etc. of the instant case.

In other words, the land stipulated in Paragraph 2 of this Article was originally owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, respectively.

② During the instant lawsuit pending, the Intervenor’s acceptance of the Defendants (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) owned the Defendants’ share at a successful bid and owned 2/3 shares.

③ Upon request of the Plaintiff, the Intervenor participated in the instant lawsuit.

④ The Defendants filed an application for withdrawal from a lawsuit on November 26, 2015 without the Plaintiff’s consent.

According to the above facts of recognition, there is no validity of the withdrawal from the lawsuit by the Defendants (after the withdrawal application, the remaining part of the lawsuit against the Defendants was pending and the decision of recommending reconciliation was finalized on March 8, 2016 between the Plaintiff and the Defendants). The part of the claim for partition of co-owned property against the Defendants in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

2. As to the plaintiff's claim against the intervenor

A. The land described in Paragraph 2 of the Notice of Claim No. 1 as seen earlier is 1/3.