건물등철거
1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The grounds for this part of the facts of recognition are as follows, except for those written by the court as follows, and thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The details of No. 4 and No. 5 (excluding marks) in the judgment of the first instance shall be as follows:
“O (Death on May 2009, Habman, hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”).
A) Around June 1971, acquired the ownership of the instant land, and the Plaintiff D, K, and the Defendant began to implement each procedure for the transfer registration of ownership over 225/50 of the instant land shares on December 6, 1979, and transferred the instant land to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant, etc. over several times by December 24, 2004. The “each description of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of A” in the first instance judgment No. 3, No. 12 (excluding marks) of the first instance judgment, was amended to read “A No. 1, 2, and No. 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)”.
2. The plaintiffs asserts that the decision on the cause of the claim may obstruct the exercise of the plaintiffs' right to the land of this case by owning the building of this case, which is the sole ownership of the defendant, on the ground of the land of this case owned by the defendant with the plaintiffs, and thus, the majority of the land of this case can seek removal of the building of this case against the defendant according to the right to claim removal of interference based on ownership or right
According to the facts of recognition, the plaintiffs are co-owners of the land of this case, and it is clear that the defendant, co-owners of the land of this case, owned the land of this case by owning the building of this case, and a majority of co-owners of the co-ownership can claim the delivery of the whole co-owners of the co-ownership with respect to the co-ownership of the co-ownership of the co-ownership. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim seeking removal of disturbance based on the ownership or removal of the building of this case is justified.