beta
Text
1. The Defendant collected trees planted on the ground of 1,398 square meters in Cheongong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and collected the said land from the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant and D shared 1/2 shares of each of the 1,398 square meters of Cheongbuk-gun, Cheongbuk-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant land”), and cultivated trees by planting trees on the instant land.
B. On December 22, 2017, according to E’s application for compulsory auction, D’s creditor, the compulsory auction procedure for D’s 1/2 shares out of the instant land was commenced, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of share ownership transfer as to the said 1/2 shares due to the sale by compulsory auction on January 3, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 4, and the purport of whole pleading
2. Even if the co-owners holding a minority share or a person claiming the registration of transfer of ownership in relation to a minority share, the co-owners cannot exclusively possess, use, and benefit from the jointly-owned property without consultation with other co-owners. Thus, even if shares owned by them fall short of the majority, the other co-owners may request the Plaintiff, who is co-owners of the pertinent land, to transfer the jointly-owned property as an act of preserving the jointly-owned property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da206584, Nov. 26, 2015). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, who is a minority share holder, who does not hold a majority share in the instant land, has planted trees on the instant land and exclusively occupied and used them, and there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant agreed on the possession and use of the instant land with the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to collect trees planted on the instant land and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, who is co-owners of the instant land.
3. Thus, we conclude that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable and it is decided as per Disposition.