The judgment below

Among the plaintiffs, the part concerning the plaintiff D shall be reversed, and the judgment of the court of first instance concerning that part shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.

1. The decision shall be made ex officio;

A lawsuit claiming a partition of co-litigation is an inherent indispensable co-litigation in which a co-owner who claims a partition becomes the Plaintiff and all other co-owners are to become a co-defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da78556, Jan. 29, 2014). Where a part of co-owners’ share is transferred to a third party during the ongoing litigation as to a partition of co-owned property, and the co-owner’s share is transferred to a third party and the previous party who transferred the co-owned share remains without withdrawing, the part concerning the previous

According to the records, on October 13, 2014, the entire shares registered in the name of Plaintiff D, a co-owner of the real estate listed in the attached Form 4 of the lower judgment (hereinafter “the instant 4 forest”) were transferred to Plaintiff D and the registration for transfer of shares was completed on October 13, 2014 during the first instance court proceeding, and on November 17, 2014, the succeeding intervenor became a party to the lawsuit by means of succession participation by filing a petition with the first instance court to the effect that Plaintiff D succeeds to Plaintiff D. Nevertheless, Plaintiff D did not withdraw from the lawsuit, and the first instance court dismissed Plaintiff D’s claim for partition of co-owned property on the premise that Plaintiff D has standing to sue, and the lower court dismissed the said appeal on the ground that Plaintiff D appealed appealed appealed.

If there are these circumstances, the plaintiff D, who filed a lawsuit as to the partition of co-owned property as to the 4 forest land of this case, remains without withdrawal from the lawsuit, and this part of the lawsuit is unlawful. Accordingly, the judgment of the first instance which dismissed the plaintiff D's claim as to the partition of co-owned property, and the judgment of the court below which maintained it, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the qualification of parties as to the partition of co-owned property, which affected the remaining judgment.