All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against Defendant F and E.

1. Determination on Defendant F’s grounds of appeal

A. If an agreement on division of inherited property is reached or an adjudication on division of inherited property becomes final and conclusive after the closure of the fact-finding proceedings, the effect of division of inherited property shall be retroactive to the commencement

Even if the acquisition of ownership through a consultation on division of inherited property or a judgment on division of inherited property is a cause occurred after the closing of argument.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Da24340 Decided June 30, 201). B.

The judgment below

According to the reasons and records, the following facts are revealed.

1) The instant real estate is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit claiming a partition of co-owned property on the ground that there was no agreement on co-owned property. (2) Defendant F asserted that “The Defendant’s contributory portion regarding the deceased M’s co-owned share among the instant real estate should be recognized, and since the Defendant filed an application for a partition of inherited property with Seoul Family Court Decision 2016 Mahap1260, it should be distributed to the said Defendant.”

The court below rejected the above defendant's assertion on the ground that the above defendant's entitlement to a contributory portion was not recognized at the time of closing argument.

3 Defendant F asserts that, after the judgment of the court below was declared as the grounds for appeal, a judgment on division of inherited property became final and conclusive, that “the net M shares of each of the instant real estate shall be divided into the sole ownership of Defendant F.”

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even after the closing of argument in the lower court’s judgment, the judgment on the division of inherited property, which became final and conclusive after the net M’s co-ownership share among the instant real estate was divided in kind to Defendant F, and retroactive when inheritance

However, this constitutes a cause that occurred after the closing of argument.

Therefore, Defendant F can only be executed with the execution clause assigned to the successor after the closing of argument.

Therefore, it is true.