1. The Defendants shall deliver the building indicated in the attached Form to the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3...

On January 28, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1/2 shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet on February 12, 2013 due to the sale by voluntary auction on January 28, 2013, and the fact that the Defendants occupied the real estate listed in the separate sheet is not disputed between the parties, or recognized according to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff, a co-owner of the attached real estate, is entitled to claim the transfer of the real estate stated in the attached Form against the defendants who possess the real estate stated in the attached Form. Thus, the defendants are obligated to deliver the real estate stated in the attached Form to

On April 14, 2014, the Defendants asserted to the effect that they were permitted by other co-owners D to use the attached property, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

Although the Defendants were permitted to use land from D, the act of the Defendants’ act of leasing the jointly owned property to another person is an act of management of the jointly owned property, and the act of management of the jointly owned property shall be determined by the majority of co-owners’ shares as stipulated under Article 265 of the Civil Act. Thus, the act of lease by the co-owners who do not constitute a majority of co-owners’ shares is a null and void contract for the remaining co-owners (see Supreme Court Decision 62Da1, Apr. 4, 1962). At the time of the sole ownership of the land, the owners were granted the right to use

Even if there is another co-owner in the land thereafter, unless the method of managing common property jointly owned and used for profit is determined by a majority of shares, it cannot be asserted against the other co-owners who newly acquired shares with the right to use and profit therefrom (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu19665, Feb. 13, 190). Such a legal principle is from the majority share holder of the co-owned building.