2. C.

D

All of the defendants' appeals and the defendants' remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendants are assessed against the Defendants. The total costs of appeal arising between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor are assessed against the Plaintiff, and 9/10 are assessed against the Defendants, respectively.

1. As to the removal of buildings and the claim for return of unjust enrichment, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, determined that the instant voluntary auction on the instant land portion is valid, and the Plaintiff, as a co-owner of the instant land offered as the site of an aggregate building, may file a claim for removal and return of unjust enrichment as alleged therein. In light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine

2. As to the claim for partial equity of land

A. In light of social norms, a building cannot exist regardless of its site, the land which became the site for the building shall be deemed to be possessed by the owner of the building. In such cases, even if the owner of the building does not actually occupy the building or its site, it shall be deemed that he/she occupies the site for the purpose of owning the building. Meanwhile, the sectional owners of one building jointly own common areas while partitioned ownership of that section of exclusive ownership. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the entire site for the building is jointly occupied and used (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da7670, Sept. 4, 2014).

B. Examining in light of the above legal principles, the Defendants’ acquiring intervenor (hereinafter “acquisition intervenor”) should be deemed to jointly possess and use the entire land of this case, which is the site of this case, without any title, as divided ownership of the apartment housing No. H of this case without the right to use the land of this case, with other sectional owners. As such, the Plaintiff can only seek to transfer the entire land of this case against the acquiring intervenor, and seek to transfer the share corresponding to the ratio of the area of the section for exclusive use of apartment No. H of this case among the land of this case does not clearly state the content of the performance, but it is not possible to execute the construction. Nevertheless, the lower court cited it on the premise that there is a benefit in protecting the rights as to the Plaintiff’s request for the delivery of the share corresponding to the ratio of the area of the section for exclusive use of apartment No. H of this case among the land of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the claim for the delivery of land against the acquiring intervenor is reversed. Since this part is sufficient for this court to directly render a judgment, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and this part of the lawsuit shall be dismissed. The appeal by the Defendants and the remaining appeals by the participating parties are all dismissed. The costs of appeal by the Plaintiff and the participating parties are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-il

Chief Justice Lee Dong-won

Justices Park Il-san