건물명도
1. The defendant points out of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff each point of the attached sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 1.
1. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff did not delegate his/her authority to conclude a lease contract to B, and that the lease contract concluded between B and the defendant as the unauthorized agent B on November 26, 2014 is not effective against the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant, who is an unauthorized occupant, is obligated to deliver the parking lot of this case to the plaintiff, who is the right holder of the right of ownership of the portion (a) in the ship connecting each point of (a) part of the real estate indicated in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 1, in sequence, among the real estate listed in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 4,
On the other hand, the defendant asserts that since he concluded a lease contract with B with the authority to properly conclude the lease contract on the instant parking lot, he cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.
2. Even if a co-owner who owns shares in the land or a building or a person entitled to a claim for the registration of transfer of ownership of such shares is entitled to exclusively possess, use, and benefit from the jointly owned property without consultation with other co-owners. Thus, even if shares held by him/her fall short of the majority, other co-owners may request the person who occupies the jointly owned property to transfer the jointly owned property as an act of preservation of the jointly owned property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da43324, May 16, 2014; 93Da9392, Mar. 22, 1994). In cases where a co-owner owns the jointly owned property one-half share of shares, each co-owner cannot exclusively use the jointly owned property without consultation with other 1/2 co-owners. The remaining co-owners are entitled to the exclusion of the exclusive use of the jointly owned property, i.e., the removal of possession of the building on the ground, and the removal of possession of the land.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da57935 delivered on November 13, 2003). With respect to the instant case, the health care unit, the Plaintiff and C are one-half equity right holders in relation to the instant parking lot, and the Defendant.