beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against Defendant B is below.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Supplementary or additional parts] Defendant R in the 5th sentence of the first instance court, “Defendant R” in the 5th sentence, shall be deemed “Defendant L”.
In Part 7 of the Decision of the first instance court, the following parts shall be added to "in the case of Gu," in Part 9:
"The detailed method for co-owners to use and make profits from the article jointly owned shall be determined by a majority of co-owners' shares (Article 265 of the Civil Act). Co-owners with a majority of shares did not consult with the other co-owners about the method of management of the article jointly owned in advance.
Even if matters relating to the management of the jointly owned property can be determined independently, it is legitimate for co-owners to determine the specific part of the jointly owned property exclusively for use and profit-making thereof as the method of management of the jointly owned property (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da33638, 33645, Nov. 27, 2001). The other co-owners cannot seek the exclusion from possession, such as delivery of possession to the possessor who is permitted to use and profit-making from the majority of co-owners. In full view of the purport of the arguments in Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, 9, and 10, five (600/610 of shares), which was the co-owners of the majority of the original land of this case, as the co-owners of the land of this case, under the premise that the land of this case was created or used in the cemetery area designated by Defendants B, F, E, and D as co-owners, and part of the land of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da386360, Dong360,