beta
Text
1. A list to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the Appointed Party C, and the Defendant’s list
1. Transfer of the recorded real estate;
(d) 2.2.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the Appointed Party C, D, and the Defendant are the deceased’s children on February 17, 2017, and as the deceased died on May 19, 2017, a list in the name of the deceased on May 19, 2017.
1. Each of the 1/4 shares of the recorded real estate (hereinafter “instant apartment”) has completed the registration of ownership transfer based on inheritance.
2) The Defendant resided in the instant apartment with the Deceased’s birth before the Deceased, and used the instant apartment after the Deceased’s death as his residence, and did not comply with the demand for delivery by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), Appointed C, and D. (3) From June 21, 2017 to August 20, 2018 regarding the instant apartment, the monthly rent for which no deposit has been made is KRW 1,67,000.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence No. 1, result of appraisal of fees by appraiser F, purport of the whole pleadings
B. Determination 1) Even if a co-owner owns shares, it cannot be permitted to exclusively own and use the jointly owned property without consultation with other co-owners. Thus, even if shares owned by himself fall short of a majority, other co-owners may request the person who possesses the jointly owned property to deliver or order the jointly owned property as an act of preserving the jointly owned property (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da9392,93Da9408, Mar. 22, 1994) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da9392, 9408, Mar. 22, 1994). Unless there are special circumstances, such as the defendant who independently occupies and uses the apartment of this case has legitimate authority to possess it, the plaintiff (appointed party), the appointed party, and D to deliver the apartment of this case, and as such, the amount equivalent to the portion of unjust enrichment calculated from July 1, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the apartment of this case (i.e.