1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs are co-ownership of the instant land, which is the section for common use, as co-owners of an I shop (collective building) on the ground of 3,042 square meters in Daegu Jung-gu.

B. The Defendants, as owners of the instant ground objects, use and occupy the instant land as sales business place, such as race and miscellaneousization.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendants asserted that “Defendant F is in possession of the instant land and does not have any right to dispose of it. Therefore, the Defendant is not eligible to be a party. In addition, Plaintiff C, D, and A merely own only a part of the shares of each shop, and there is no right to make a decision on the sectional ownership of each shop, and thus, the Plaintiff is not eligible to be a party.”

However, in the lawsuit of performance, the plaintiff's standing to be a party is nominal by the plaintiff's own claim, and the judgment can be absorptiond into the judgment on the propriety of the claim, so the claimant's right to claim performance is a legitimate

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da14797, Jun. 14, 1994). Therefore, the Defendants’ principal defense is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

(a) Even if a co-owner owns shares in land or a building for the cause of the claim, he/she cannot exclusively occupy and use, and benefit from, the jointly owned property without consultation with other co-owners. Thus, even if shares owned by him/her fall short of a majority, another co-owner may demand the person who occupies the jointly owned property to deliver the jointly owned property as an act of preservation of the jointly owned property.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da9392, 9408, Mar. 22, 1994). According to the above findings, the Defendants possessing the instant land, which is jointly owned, and exclusively using and making profits from the said land.