B. Whether a right holder of the article jointly owned is granted the exclusive right to use and benefit exclusively from the fact that the part of the article jointly owned was transferred by the person who exclusively occupied and used the article jointly owned through the execution of the final judgment (negative)

B. Even if a right holder of the article jointly owned excludes a person who has exclusively or exclusively occupied and used part of the article jointly owned as an act of preservation, and the part was delivered through the execution of the final and conclusive judgment, such fact alone does not necessarily mean that the right holder is granted exclusive or exclusive benefit right to the article jointly owned.

(1) According to Article 34(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Partition of Co-Owned Land, Ltd., the co-owned land shall be divided according to the protocol of partition at the time when the protocol of partition becomes final and conclusive. Thus, even if the protocol of partition and the protocol of cadastral surveying under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Partition of Co-Owned Land have been prepared with respect to the land of this case by 12 persons including the applicant, it is just that the court below recognized the fact that the protocol of partition and the protocol of cadastral surveying under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Partition of Co-Owned Land have not yet been prepared and prepared, and judged that the protocol of partition

(2) It is stipulated in Article 265 of the Civil Act that the detailed method for co-owners to use and benefit from the common property is to be determined by a majority of co-owners. The right holder of the common property cannot use it arbitrarily and exclusively, unless there is an agreement with other right holder. The remaining right holder of the common property can seek exclusion from exclusive use as an act of preservation of the common property (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu1902,1901, Jan. 15, 1991; 80Da1280,1281, Feb. 22, 1983). Accordingly, the court below's rejection of the application for provisional disposition on the ground that the applicant did not have exclusive or exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case, and that the applicant did not have exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case, and that the applicant did not have exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case, and that the court below's rejection of the application for provisional disposition of this case is justified.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)