건물철거 및 토지인도
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. The text of the judgment of the court of first instance is set forth.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Seopopo-si C large 238 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. On June 25, 197, the network D completed the registration of ownership transfer of the E large-149 square meters land adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “instant adjoining land”). Thereafter, each building listed in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “each building of this case”) was constructed on the ground of the land listed in attached Table 2, which is part of the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”).
C. Meanwhile, the deceased on February 1, 2010 and the deceased on February 1, 201, there are 16 children other than the defendant who is the spouse, and the deceased on his/her spouse, including the spouse and his/her children. The Defendant’s share in the property of the network D is 27/171.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 8, 9, 10, and 13 (including each number), the result of the inquiry and response to the return market by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendant asserts that the instant building and the instant land portion are co-owned by the Defendant and other inheritors, and the lawsuit seeking removal of each of the instant buildings and delivery of the said land portion is a requisite co-litigation against all the co-owners. Thus, the instant lawsuit seeking removal and delivery against the Defendant is unlawful and dismissed.
The duty of removal of a building by co-inheritors is an indivisible obligation in its nature, and each co-inheritors bears the duty of removal of the building as a whole within the limit of their respective shares. Thus, a lawsuit seeking removal of a co-ownership building cannot be deemed an essential co-litigation against all co-owners (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da756, Jun. 24, 1980; 92Da49218, Feb. 23, 1993). The lawsuit seeking delivery of the building site cannot be deemed a necessary co-litigation. Thus, the defendant's above lawsuit cannot be deemed as a necessary co-litigation.