1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Plaintiffs and the Intervenor’s successors against Defendant G.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except when the judgment is used or added as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The following shall be added to the third side of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is written or added:

Of the instant land, Defendant G’s 1/3 shares were completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation on February 3, 1998 by Defendant G, and on October 29, 2001, BH corporation filed a lawsuit against Defendant G seeking the cancellation of the above transfer of ownership (Seoul Central District Court 2001Gahap65774) and received a favorable judgment, and returned to the company as long as the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 1, 2003, and was sold to Defendant G’s Intervenor BG during the process of compulsory auction by Defendant BI in Seoul Central District Court. The following was added to the third instance judgment of the first instance on April 26, 2018.

2. “2. We examine ex officio whether the lawsuit against the plaintiffs and the intervenors succeeding to the plaintiffs against the defendant G is legitimate, and since the co-owners claiming a partition of co-litigation are the plaintiff and all other co-owners are co-litigants who shall be co-defendants. Thus, where the whole share of some co-owners is transferred to a third party while the lawsuit regarding a partition of co-owned property is pending, and the transferee of the co-owned share transferred the share to a third party without withdrawal of the previous party who transferred the share (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da50293, Feb. 18, 2016). The lawsuit against the parties who did not withdraw is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da50293, Feb. 18, 2016). As seen earlier, the fact that the acquiring intervenor Eul acquired the shares of defendant G among the land in this case against the plaintiffs and the intervenors succeeding to the plaintiffs