A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners of the instant building site, which is part of the co-owners of the instant building site, which is the 3,042㎡ of Daegu Jung-gu (hereinafter “instant building site”).

B. The defendant is the non-party I, the one who is the sectional owner of the first floor Nos. 4 and 5, and registered his business in the name of the defendant with the trade name of "J" and runs the race and miscellaneous video store (the name on the signboard shall be "K") in the first floor No. 5 (hereinafter "the store in this case").

Of the instant site, approximately 4 square meters of the part inside the ship connected in order to indicate 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 each point of the separate sheet in front of the instant store (hereinafter “instant land”). On the ground, signboards, clothing display stand, electric facilities, and tent facilities (hereinafter “instant ground objects”) are installed, and the Defendant uses the instant land as a sales business place, such as race and miscellaneousization.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 2 to 5, video, on-site inspection results, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant is merely possessing the land of this case and does not have any right to dispose of it. Thus, the defendant has no standing to be a party.

In addition, the plaintiff C, D, and A merely own a part of the shares of each store, and there is no decision-making right as to the divided ownership of each store, and therefore there is no standing as the plaintiff.

B. In a lawsuit for the performance of judgment, the plaintiff's standing to be a party is nominal by the plaintiff's own claim, and such judgment is absorptiond into the judgment on the propriety of the claim, and thus, the plaintiff is a legitimate plaintiff and the person who is asserted as the performance obligor by the plaintiff is the defendant

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da14797, Jun. 14, 1994). Therefore, the Defendant’s principal defense is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Co-owners of one land to determine the cause of the claim.