1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

In full view of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 19, it is recognized that among the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the defendants' share in the real estate indicated in the separate sheet was registered as a site ownership on Jan. 11, 200, and the defendants were registered as a preservation of 16 households in multi-household houses on the ground, but disposed of the 16 households in exclusive ownership to others after the registration of the establishment

Where a right to use a site is recognized as being indivisible with the section for exclusive use and completes the registration of ownership transfer by purchasing the section for exclusive use, the purchaser shall acquire a co-owned share in land even if the registration of transfer is not completed.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da103325, Nov. 28, 2013). The Defendants, by disposing of 16 households of the section for exclusive use, lost all co-ownership shares in relation to real estate stated in the separate sheet.

The Defendants are not co-owners of the real estate listed in the currently annexed list.

The lawsuit of this case seeking a partition of co-owned property against the Defendants is unlawful as against a person other than co-owners.

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.