beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B is indicated in the attached Form No. 44,45, among the 23,452 square meters of forests and fields D in Gangseo-gun, Gangwon-do.
Reasons
In fact, on September 26, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 24, 2013 with respect to D Forest land 23,452 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On March 14, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for 6,000/26,657 shares out of the instant land to 5 other than E on March 12, 2014.
On December 12, 1990, Defendant B was the owner of the above house, which completed the registration of preservation of ownership with respect to cement structure and 31.17 square meters on the instant land, and at the time of the registration of preservation of ownership, the above land had been connected in order to each point of 52,53,54,55,52, indicated in the attached drawings, and there was a 13 square meters of a cement block structure, cement block structure, reticle, one story, one story, and the above single-story house was extended to an improvement project around March 2008 and connected each point of 46,47,48,49, 50,51,46, and was constructed with the cement block structure and 83 square meters on the instant land, and the aforementioned land was combined with the above 4th floor and the above 4th floor and the above 4th floor and the above 4th floor were connected to each other (hereinafter referred to as “the above 4th floor and fence”).
Defendant C currently resided in the instant house and occupies and uses it.
【In the absence of dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, the result of appraiser F's survey and appraisal, and the result of appraiser F's appraisal, the removal of ground buildings and the claim for delivery of land fall under the act of preserving the jointly-owned property. Thus, co-owners may demand removal of each ground building and removal of land without consultation with the other co-owners, regardless of whether co-owned share reaches a majority, and the removal of the building from the building without consultation with the other co-owners.
In light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff's assertion was examined by the Health Team, and the defendant B on the land of this case.