Effect of the management act of the jointly owned property without a majority of the shares

Administration of the jointly owned property shall be subject to a resolution of a majority of shares of the co-owners, and it shall not be effective in relation to other co-owners unless the resolution is adopted.

Article 265 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 4292Da431 delivered on April 4, 1962 (Supreme Court Decision 7041 delivered on October 15, 1959; Supreme Court Decision 62Da1040 delivered on July 20, 197, Supreme Court Decision 71Da1040 delivered on July 20, 197, Supreme Court Decision 71Da1040 delivered on July 20, 197, Supreme Court Decision 71Da1040 delivered on July 20, 197 (Kadad. 9162; Supreme Court Decision 209 delivered on September 19, 200; Supreme Court Decision 265(20)344

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and two others

Daegu District Court of the first instance (70 Ghana3511)

The appeal by the defendant, etc. is dismissed, respectively.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

In relation to the plaintiff, the defendant 1 removed 142-4 large 1419 large 142-4 large 1419 large 9 large 9 large 1bbes on the ground, and removed 13 large 1bbes on the part (D) display of the above drawings, and delivered 13 large 1bbes on the part (d) display of the above drawings, and the defendant 2 removed 1-6bbes on 1-6 large 8 large 8 large 8 large 7 large 25 large 7 square meters in the above drawings, and removed 1-7 large 7 large 5 square meters in the above drawings.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

According to the results of the verification and appraisal conducted by the court below with respect to the contents of No. 1, which are not disputed in the formation of the evidence No. 1, the facts that the defendant et al. owned and used for possession of the house on each part of the land as stated in the purport of the claim are acknowledged, and there is no other evidence contrary thereto.

Therefore, the above site of the issue is presumed to be owned by nine joint owners including the plaintiff. The defendant et al. asserted that the above site of this case is unreasonable despite the fact that the above site of this case was owned by the plaintiff 1, 5, 5, 6, 1, and 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 5, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 9, 1, 6, 1, 6, 1, 1, 6, 6, 3, 1.

However, in the absence of special circumstances, the management act of the co-owned property like the lease should be decided by the majority of co-owners' share, and it shall be null and void from the limit of other co-owned property unless there is such resolution, so long as there is no assertion that the defendant et al. leased from the co-owner who does not have a majority of the co-owner's share, the plaintiff as co-owner cannot claim the right of lease acknowledged earlier against the plaintiff as co-owner, unless it is proved that the majority of the co-owner's share is determined otherwise, and the removal of the house constructed on the ground such as this case's co-owned property and the transfer of the site for possession belongs to the act of preservation of the co-owned property. Therefore, the defendant et

In addition, the defendant et al. asserted that the plaintiff's claim for this case is unfair because he is the right holder of the extreme lawsuit, but according to the above evidence, the plaintiff is a right holder of the total 28 minutes of the above site from the non-party 2 on March 9, 1965 and can be recognized as a relatively small ratio of share holder. However, it is difficult to say that the defendant et al. cannot exercise the claim for this case or the act of preserving it. Thus, the defendant et al.'s claim for this case also return

Accordingly, as stated in the purport of the claim, the defendant et al. has the obligation to remove the house constructed on the part of the above site and deliver the part of the occupied site to the plaintiff. Thus, the claim of this case is justified. Since the original judgment with the opinion above is justified, the appeal seeking its revocation is dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the same Act with respect to the burden of the appeal cost.

Judges Lee Yong-su (Presiding Judge)