(a) The case where there is an error of misapprehending the legal principles of the necessary co-litigation; and

(b) Where there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the division of jointly owned property.

(a) Where the purpose of a lawsuit is to be jointly decided on all co-litigants, and one of the co-litigants who are required to file an appeal, such appeal shall also have its effect on other co-litigants.

(b) Division of the article jointly owned shall be either a judicial division or a debate through consultation, and all the co-owners shall participate in the partition procedure;

Article 63 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 268, and Article 269 of the Civil Act

Ethical Rotables

Lee Jin-jin

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na2316, 2317 delivered on January 24, 1968, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na2316, 2317

The part of the defendant's complaint among the original judgment shall be reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney is examined.

Where the purpose of litigation is to be jointly decided on all co-litigants, that is, in case of a necessary co-litigation, an appeal filed by one of the co-litigants has an effect on other co-litigants, so other co-litigants also become a party to the appellate court. Therefore, even in case where there is any co-litigants among the co-litigants of the first instance, who did not appeal, the court below should summon all the co-litigants who received the judgment of the first instance court to the date for pleading

However, in the case of the necessary co-litigants, the court below filed an appeal only with the defendant Lee Tae-jin, Kim Jong-tae, Kimcheon-ok, Lee Chang-ok, Lee Chang-soo, and Lee Chang-soo, who are the co-litigantss in the case of this case, and only the defendant Lee Tae-jin and the country, among the countries, filed an appeal, and the defendant Kim Jong-tae, Kim Jong-ok, Kimcheon-ok, and Lee Chang-do, who did not file an appeal in accordance with the above principles, and therefore they are the parties to the appellate court of this case. Thus, the court below should summon and examine the defendant Lee Jong-jin, Kimcheon-ok, and Lee Chang-do, who did not file an appeal in accordance with the above principles, but should be summoned and examined as the date for pleading, such as the country, and the country,

The second ground of appeal is examined.

Co-ownership refers to the state of ownership of a certain thing by shares and the way to terminate the co-ownership relationship, that is, the division of the co-owned property is to be made by only any one of the co-owners, and the fact that all the co-owners are required to participate in the partition procedure is a natural result due to the nature of co-ownership.

Therefore, since each co-owner has a direct interest as a party in the division of co-owned property, it is to prevent the division in consultation or the division in court and to deny it.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the non-party's motive, Han-do, Kim Jong-gu, Seoul (former lot number omitted, 53 and 54-3) land 259 square meters (former lot number omitted, 53 and 54-3 of the same Act), which is the land of this case, was a co-owner of non-party's land, and that the non-party's co-owner's motive, Han-do, Kim Jong-gu, Cho Young-gu, and Lee Jong-gu, the defendant Lee Jong-gu, had a re-determination of the location, such as the contents of evidence No. 5-7 (Evidence No. 8-3 of the evidence No. 8-3) among the co-owner of non-party's land of this case, which is the land of this case, based on the evidence that he

However, as recognized by the court below, it is clear that the division specific, i.e., the re-determination of the location of each co-owner's share is the division of the co-owned property again, and therefore, if the site was agreed upon by all co-owners at the time of the division, only four co-owners have affixed the written consent, and the remaining two co-owners have affixed the written consent, and as long as it is evident by the original decision that there was no agreement of all the co-owners in the common property of this case, the division cannot be deemed that there was an agreement of all the co-owners in the common property of this case. However, the court below held that there was an agreement of all the co-owners in the common property of this case by interpreting the legal principles as to the division of the co-owned property of this case, which affected the conclusion of the

Therefore, the part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be reversed, and the original judgment shall be tried again, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court Dog-dong (Presiding Judge)