1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Of the instant lawsuits, the designated parties S, U, Y, Z, and W shall be dismissed.

1. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the designated parties (except the appointed parties S, U, Y, Z, and W), the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenors, and the Defendants shared the instant building as indicated in the table No. 3.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The claim part of the instant lawsuit is legitimate, ex officio, as to whether the designated person S, U, Y, Z, and W’s claim part among the instant lawsuit is legitimate.

A lawsuit for partition of jointly owned property may be instituted only by co-owners (Article 269(1) of the Civil Act). As seen earlier, the aforementioned designated parties did not hold shares in the building of this case (i) to the succeeding intervenors, who held 1/100 shares in his/her possession on September 1, 2015, and (ii) to the succeeding intervenors, who held 1/100 shares in his/her possession on October 2, 2013, and (iii) to A, who held 1/100 shares in his/her possession on July 3, 2014; (iv) to AB on July 13, 2015; and (iv) to AC to whom the designated parties held on August 29, 2014; and (v) to whom the designated parties owned the Plaintiff’s eligible shares in the lawsuit of this case to the succeeding Intervenor, respectively.

Therefore, the part on the designated parties among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

(Appointeds S, U, and W filed an application for withdrawal from the lawsuit on October 13, 2015, however, there is no evidence as to the Defendants’ consent, and thus, the validity of withdrawal cannot be recognized). 3. Claim by the Plaintiff (Appointeds), Appointeds, S, U, Y, Z, Z, and W, and the Intervenor’s successor

A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party), Appointeds S, U, Y, Z, and W, and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenors (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) share the instant building with the Defendants.