1. The Plaintiff:

A. The Defendants are located in the area of 96 square meters in Seocheon-gun D, Seocheon-gun and in the area of E large 46 square meters, and (1) the building outline in the attached Form.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 5, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased 23/43 shares of 96 square meters and E large 46 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) respectively, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

B. On August 3, 2018, the Defendants paid the successful bid price in the compulsory auction procedure with respect to each of the buildings listed in paragraph (a) of Section 1 and each of the instant land, which is the relevant site.

On August 16, 2018, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Defendants with respect to shares of 20/86 in each of the instant land and shares of 1/2 in each of the instant buildings.

C. On August 3, 2018, rent for one year without the base deposit is KRW 1,910,610 for the instant land.

【Unfounded grounds for recognition】 The facts without dispute, the entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4, the results of appraiser F’s appraisal of rent, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Even if a co-owner owns shares in the relevant legal principles, he/she cannot exclusively possess and use and profit from the co-owned property without consultation with other co-owners. Thus, even if his/her shares fall short of a majority of the shares held by the co-owners, other co-owners may demand the person who possesses the jointly owned property to deliver or specify the jointly owned property as an act of preserving the jointly owned property.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da9392, 93Da9408, Mar. 22, 1994). In a case where both co-owners share one-half equity shares of each of the two co-owners, a 1/2 equity right holder cannot exclusively use the property without consultation with other 1/2 equity right holders, and the rest of the right holder is a right to seek the exclusion of possession, such as the removal of the building on the ground, the removal of the building on the ground, and the transfer of the land.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da57935, Nov. 13, 2003). A building under social norms cannot exist regardless of its site. As such, the land on which the site for the building was located is owned by the owner of that building.