1. The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's action against Defendant D, E, F, and H shall be dismissed.

2. 2,257 square meters in Incheon Gyeyang-gu.

1. As of the date of the closing of argument in this case, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s share in 16,880/190, 190,240, and 581/240, respectively, by Defendant C and the Defendant C; Defendant G’s share in 4,768/190, and 2,324/240; Defendant A’s share in 190,240; Defendant C’s share in 190,240; Defendant D’s share in 190,240; Defendant D’s share in 1,162; Defendant C’s share in 190,240; Defendant H L (hereinafter “acquisition”), Defendant H’s Intervenor M (hereinafter “Acceptance M”); Defendant E; Defendant E and F’s share in 190,404,468, respectively.

B. There was no special agreement between the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor, Defendant C, G, I, J, and Intervenor to not divide the instant land, and there was no agreement on the method of division.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 6, purport of whole pleadings

2. We examine the legitimacy of the part of the instant lawsuit against Defendant D, E, F, and H, ex officio, as to the lawfulness of the part of the instant lawsuit against Defendant D, E, F, and H.

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

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da50293, Feb. 18, 2016). According to the purport of the entire entries and arguments regarding evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6 in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, following the entire purport of the instant lawsuit, Defendant D sales to the Intervenor L on May 9, 2018.