Defendant B.

2. The reasoning for the court's explanation on this part of the judgment on the cause of the claim is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where "to leave the store of this case and deliver it to the store of this case" in Section 3, 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and "to leave the store of this case and deliver it to the store of this case" in Sections 5, 11 and 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and "to leave the store of this case and deliver it to the store of this case" are as stated in the judgment of the court of

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The gist of the Defendants’ assertion is that Defendant A divided ownership of the instant store under the divided ownership agreement with Defendant A, and Defendant B obtained the right to use the instant store from Defendant A, so the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have acquired the instant adjacent store, which is the part of divided ownership C in the auction procedure. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.

In addition, the Defendants agreed to use the instant store solely by Defendant A with the owner of 1/2 shares acquired by the Plaintiff, but agreed to use the store free of charge for two years, and thus, they cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.

(B) The Defendant’s assertion of the agreement on sectional ownership is that the agreement on the use and profit management of the store of this case is included, and thus, it can be seen as detrimental to this.

Judgment

It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff, who claimed sectional ownership, shared 1/2 of the entire real estate of this case, was the co-ownership of 1/2 shares. Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the sectional co-ownership relationship between Defendant C and Defendant A, alleged by Defendant A, succeeds to the Plaintiff, who purchased co-ownership in the auction procedure.