beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,585,100 and the Defendant’s real estate indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 from July 3, 2018 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. On June 3, 2016, the Plaintiff is a person who won a successful bid and completed the registration of transfer of shares in the process of compulsory auction with respect to a share of 1/4 of the instant land. The Defendant is a co-owner who has the remainder of 3/4 shares in the said land.
B. The defendant owns the building of this case and occupies the land of this case.
[Reasons] Fact-finding without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, determination of specific methods for the use and profit-making of the common property among the co-owners of legal principles related to determination of the purport of the entire pleadings, removal of buildings, and request for delivery of land should be determined by a majority of co-owners' share as matters relating to the management of the common property. Since co-owners with a majority of shares, even if there was no prior consultation on the method of management of the common property with other co-owners, matters relating to the management of the common property can be decided independently, it is legitimate for co-owners with a majority of shares to decide to exclusively use and profit from the common
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da9738 Decided May 14, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2015Da206584 Decided November 26, 2015, etc.). As to the instant case, as seen earlier, the health stand, the Plaintiff owned the instant land in the proportion of 1/4 shares, and 3/4 shares, respectively.
The Plaintiff, who is a co-owner of a majority share, cannot claim the removal of the instant building and the transfer of the instant land against the Defendant, a co-owner of a majority share.
The plaintiff's removal of the building of this case and the claim for delivery of the land of this case are without merit.
The method of management of the jointly owned property to determine the exclusive use and profit-making of a specific portion of the co-owned property with a majority of the co-owned share in the determination of the claim for return of unjust enrichment is lawful, but in such a case, the specific portion of the co-owned property is specified.