beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff, Defendant E, with respect to Defendant E’s share of 3/15, and the remaining Defendants, with respect to each share of 2/15.
Reasons
The Plaintiff owned 1,107 square meters and 436 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) prior to the YU in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and the respective buildings on each of the instant lands are located on each of the instant lands (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”); Defendant E is located on each of the instant lands; Defendant E owns 3/15 shares; the remainder of the Defendants owned each of the instant buildings with respect to each of the instant 2/15 shares; there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and Defendant D; and the Plaintiff and the remainder of the Defendants are deemed to have led to the confession of the Defendants pursuant to Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act.
Since a building cannot exist regardless of its site under social norms, the land which became the site for the building shall be deemed to have been possessed by the owner of the building, and 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 building site for the purpose of owning the building.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da61193, Jan. 28, 2010). Therefore, Defendant E is liable to remove each of the instant buildings with respect to 3/15 shares; the remaining Defendants are obligated to remove each of the instant buildings with respect to 2/15 shares; and deliver each of the instant building sites to the Plaintiff.
Meanwhile, while the Plaintiff seeks to jointly and severally perform the removal of each building of this case and the delivery of its land to the Defendants, the co-inheritors’ obligation to remove the building within their respective share limits (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da756, Jun. 24, 1980). Therefore, the Defendants are not jointly and severally liable for removal of the building beyond their share limits and delivery of the site.
Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendants jointly seek performance beyond the scope of shares of each building of this case is without merit.
The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition.