2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

A. The pertinent Plaintiff (Appointed Party) between the parties is co-owners of 3/187 shares of Pyeongtaek-si Cand 712 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”). The co-owners, the designated parties D, E, F, and G are co-owners of 2/187 shares of the instant land, and the Defendant is co-owners of 176/187 shares of the instant land, and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) is the Defendant’s penal number, and the designated parties are the Defendant’s co-owners of 176/187 shares of the instant land.

B. Around 1979, the current status of the use of the land in this case (1) was the deceased H [the plaintiff (Appointed Party) who was the former sole owner of the land in this case and the father of the defendant] constructed a single-story house and warehouse on the ground in this case, and completed the registration of ownership on the building ledger on June 7, 1989.

(2) At present, the defendant is currently occupying and using the land of this case solely while carrying out construction work for extension of the building without consultation with the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated parties.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts that there is no dispute between the parties or is not clearly disputed, Gap 1, 2, and 3, and Eul 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is one of the co-owners, and the Defendant, as one of the co-owners, conducts an act of disposal of arbitrarily constructing a building on the ground when occupying and using the instant land solely, and thus, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties seek removal of the building and delivery of the land as an act of preserving jointly-owned property against the Defendant.

(2) Matters related to the management of the common property asserted by the Defendant may be determined by a majority of co-ownership shares. The sole possession and use of the land in this case and the extension of the existing building are matters related to the management of the common property, and the Defendant holds co-ownership shares. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit

(b) the sale (1) of the article jointly owned;