The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff can solely seek the removal of the instant building and the transfer of the instant land in the position of a majority right holder of the instant land; and (b) succeeded to the sectionally owned co-ownership relationship

In all cases, we rejected all of the allegation that the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s name with respect to the majority of the land in this case is null and void, and the assertion of violation of the good faith principle or abuse of rights and the assertion of errors in the calculation of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent, etc.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the management and preservation of the jointly owned property, as seen in the grounds of appeal, such as co-ownership of sectional ownership, relation of co-ownership, legal superficies, mutual title trust and termination, change of real rights to real estate, principle of right per day, restitution of unjust enrichment, succession of dispute and the scope of land ownership, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely recognizing facts beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the law of logic and experience.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.