1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, listed in attached Table No. 1, and Defendant C, listed in attached Table No. 2.

Even if the co-owner of shares or a person who has obtained the consent from the co-owner can not exclusively possess, use, and benefit from, the co-owned property without consultation with other co-owners. Thus, even if the shares held by the co-owners fall short of a majority, the other co-owners may demand delivery or evacuation of the co-owned property as an act of preserving the co-owned property, even if the shares held by the

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da12317 Decided August 21, 1998. The Plaintiff is the owner who acquired 1/2 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet on September 6, 2013. Defendant B occupies the real estate listed in the separate sheet as one-half share holder of each real estate listed in the separate sheet. Defendant C leased and occupied the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 from Defendant B, and Defendant D leased and occupied the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 from Defendant B. Since there is no dispute between the parties, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff seeking delivery as a preservation act for the jointly owned property.

If so, the plaintiff's claim is accepted as reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.