1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 10, 2011, the Plaintiff acquired shares among the buildings listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1334.605/1856.2 shares among the land indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant site”) and the buildings listed in paragraph (2) of the same attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) 8075.32/11231.43 shares of the instant building.

B. The Defendant Electrical Construction Mutual Aid Association (hereinafter “Defendant Mutual Aid Association”) is a holder of the share of 112.48/1856.2 of the instant land and the share of 680.57/11231.43 of the instant building, and as the owner of the share of 680.57/11231.43 of the instant building, the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) leases the part of 531.448 square meters (hereinafter “the instant building part”) as stated in the purport of the claim to the Defendant

【Ground of recognition】 Any fact without dispute, Gap 1 and 2

2. Claims by the parties and the issues of the instant case

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to seek delivery of the instant building part against the Defendant Company, a direct possessor, and the Defendant Company, a co-owned owner of the instant building site and building, for an appropriate management act as a majority of the right holder of the instant

Even if the agreement between the Plaintiff, the former co-owner, on the exclusive possession of the specific portion between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Union, was reached, there was a circumstance to modify the agreement.

B. The main point of the Defendants’ assertion is that the light industry constructing the instant building has specified and sold the instant building parts, and thus, the sectionally owned co-ownership relationship is established. Even if not, there is an agreement on exclusive possession and use of a specific part, and its effect extends to the Plaintiff.

There is no circumstance to modify such agreement.

C. The key issue of the instant case is whether the agreement on exclusive possession and use of the instant building between the mining industry and the Defendant Union on the part of the instant building was reached, and whether the circumstances to modify such agreement are acknowledged.

3. Judgment on the issue

(a)a fact of recognition;