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. The fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court are justified even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court citing the judgment of the first instance is based on the evidence submitted in this court.

Therefore, the reasoning of this court concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the dismissal or addition as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Therefore, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The following shall be added to the third and fifth parts of the judgment of the first instance, which are written or added:

D. On May 15, 2020, Defendant B acquired the ownership of the instant commercial building No. 10.88/1526 among the instant commercial buildings, and the ownership of the instant commercial building No. 10.88/1526 among the instant commercial buildings on January 23, 2018; Defendant C acquired 10.54/1526 shares among the instant commercial buildings and the instant land; and 5.4/1526 shares among the instant commercial buildings on May 18, 2020; and 5.4/1526 shares among the instant commercial buildings on May 18, 2020.

Part III through 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cut to the following:

In the event that a minority right holder of the article jointly owned by the claim for removal takes exclusive possession or use of all or part of the article jointly owned without consultation with other co-owners, another right holder may not demand delivery as an act of preserving the article jointly owned. However, the other right holder may demand the prohibition of an act of removing interference with the article jointly owned or interfering with the joint possession based on his/her own right (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da28752, May 21, 2020). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants, who are only a minority right holder of the land of this case, occupy and use the land exclusively by occupying and using the facility of this case on the ground of the land of this case. As such, the Plaintiff, who is another right holder, is the owner of the facility of this case, to remove interference with the article jointly owned.