1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the court’s explanation is as stated in the judgment of the first instance court, except in the following cases: (b) the Plaintiff’s request related to concrete packaging is not more than 9 pages of the judgment of the first instance court; and (c) thus, it is decided to accept this case as it is by the main text of Article 4

[Supplementary Use]

C. The plaintiff's claim 1 related to concrete packaging of the land of this case asserts that the plaintiff can seek the removal of interference with construction as co-owner of the land of this case, and it constitutes an act of preserving the jointly owned property. However, the packing act constitutes an act of managing the jointly owned property to determine specific methods for using and making profits from the jointly owned property. Since the plaintiff, which is a minority right holder of the land of this case, cannot perform the management act of the jointly owned property without consultation with other right holders of the land of this case, the plaintiff cannot arbitrarily pack the land of this case and can not seek the removal of interference against the defendants. Meanwhile, although the removal of concrete packaging of the land of this case constitutes a change of jointly owned property, the plaintiff's act of removing concrete packaging of this case is unlawful without the plaintiff's consent. However, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit since the plaintiff's right to package the land of this case is not granted to the plaintiff according to the illegality of the above defendants' act.