beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s annual interest in KRW 26,964,892 and each of the above amounts to the Plaintiffs from January 1, 2015 to July 15, 2015.
Reasons
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties or may be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1 to 15, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 3, and Eul evidence 7-4.
Attached Form
The registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant was completed as of January 31, 2002 by the Seoul Central District Court No. 4891 on each of the real estate listed in the list (hereinafter “instant real estate”). However, the Plaintiffs and four other persons filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the Seoul Central District Court 2002Gahap29010 on June 2, 2003, the conciliation was concluded by the above court on June 2, 2003, and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiffs was completed as of each of the real estate 1/20 shares in the instant real estate as of September 9, 2004 as of June 2, 2003.
B. The Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the lessees of E organizations, incorporated associations, joint and several participation in soil slaughter, and F, respectively, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) from around 2003 to December 31, 2014, and received rent and deposit for lease.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. There was no prior agreement between the co-owner and the co-owner on the method of management of the article jointly owned.
A majority of co-owners of share can independently decide matters concerning the management of the co-owned property. A majority of co-owners can exclusively use and benefit from one part of the co-owned property by the method of management of the co-owned property. However, the share caused by it, but the minority right holders suffering from damages due to the failure to use or benefit from the specific part, making unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent corresponding to the share.
Therefore, Supreme Court Decision 2002. 2002.