1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendant (Appointed Party) B and the Plaintiff’s trial against the Defendant (Appointed Party) B.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As Defendant B is the actual owner of the instant building, Defendant C, D, E, and F are obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration as to shares of 1/5 of the instant building among the instant building in the procedure for compulsory auction by H real estate held by the court, and Defendant B, who illegally occupies the instant building, is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff. Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 2 million by compensating the Plaintiff for mental material damages incurred to the Plaintiff by failing to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff. Defendant B is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the monthly rent of KRW 26 million from February 1, 2012 to June 30, 2015 and the amount equivalent to KRW 6.6 million from July 1, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building.

B. 1) In the auction procedure for determining claims against Defendant C, D, E, and F, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff, who acquired 1/5 shares of the instant building among the instant building, was entitled to file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer as to their shares with respect to Defendant C, D, E, and F, who are the co-owners of other co-owned shares. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the said Defendants is without merit. 2) Determination of the specific method for the use of and benefit from the common property between the co-owners in determining the claim against Defendant B is determined by a majority of co-owners’ shares. A majority of co-owners did not have agreed with the other co-owners on the method

Even if the matters concerning the management of the article jointly owned can be decided independently, a majority of shares.