1. The succeeding intervenor’s lawsuit against Defendant D, F, and G is dismissed.

2. 2,818 square meters in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City.

As of the date of the closing of argument in this case, among the plaintiffs' succeeding intervenors 2,818 square meters (hereinafter "the land in this case"), the plaintiffs' succeeding intervenors (hereinafter " succeeding intervenors") share 21,922/23,80, and 450/23,80 of shares of defendant E, defendant A limited liability company (hereinafter "Defendant A"), defendant D's acquiring intervenor H (hereinafter "acquisition Intervenor H"), defendant F's acquiring intervenor I (hereinafter "Acceptance I"), and defendant G's acquiring intervenor Eul (hereinafter "acquisition intervenor J") share 23,800 shares, respectively.

There was no special agreement between the succeeding intervenors, Defendant E, A, and the succeeding intervenors to not divide the instant land, and there was no agreement on the method of division.

【The ground for recognition” is without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 3, and the purport of the entire pleading, and ex officio whether the part against defendant D, F, and G is legitimate, among the lawsuits in this case, we examine whether the part against defendant D, F, and G is legitimate or not.

Inasmuch as a co-owner’s claim for partition is an inherent indispensable co-litigation in which the co-owner who filed a partition becomes the Plaintiff and all other co-owners are to become a co-defendant, where the whole share of some co-owners is transferred to a third party during the progress of litigation as to the partition of co-owned property, and the previous party who transferred the co-owned share remains without withdrawing even though the co-owner participated in or participated in the lawsuit claiming

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da50293, Feb. 18, 2016). According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments and evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as to the instant case, following the entirety of the instant legal proceedings, Defendant D’s trade to the Intervenor H on May 15, 2018, and Defendant F’s trade to the Intervenor I on May 28, 2018.