beta
Text
1. The Defendants are each indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the land size 1121.5 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul E, Seoul.
Reasons
1. Presumed factual basis
A. Each restaurant is operated in the aggregate of the H market established on the land of Mapo-gu Seoul, G, and E, the trade name of Plaintiff A, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff J, respectively.
B. Since November 23, 1963, K acquired some shares of the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul, G, and E adjacent land, and created H market by acquiring each of the above land buildings.
K subsequently sold shares in each of the above lands and buildings, and as of March 28, 2013, the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu land (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by Defendant C and 55, and the above ground buildings owned by Defendant C and 24, respectively.
Each owner of the above shares forms a sectionally owned co-ownership relationship through mutual title trust by purchasing a specific part from K in the form of store or street store, or acquiring by succession a specific part from the buyer, and completing a registration of co-ownership transfer on the register. The owner of the above shares occupies and uses the specific part exclusively while operating the respective store or street store in the specific part.
C. Defendant C purchased from K on November 19, 2002 the share of 38.11/1121.5 of the instant land and 45/197 of the building on its ground, and completed the registration of co-ownership transfer on June 12, 2003, and purchased the share of 83.187/1121.5 of the instant land from L on January 16, 2007 and completed the registration of co-ownership transfer on June 4, 2007.
On October 25, 2013, Defendant D set the leased object from Defendant C as “12 square meters out of the land 25 square meters purchased by Defendant C with L,” and, on November 15, 2013, installed the Aluminium voting time (hereinafter “instant structure”) on the part of the ship connected in order to each point of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 square meters in the attached drawings on November 15, 2013.
The part of this case is, on the one hand, inside the H market, such as restaurants operated by the plaintiffs.