1. The Defendant shall order the Plaintiff to 26 square meters of a rooftop (unauthorized building) among the real estate listed in the attached list.

2...

The Plaintiff acquired 320/12136 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (including 25 co-ownership), on June 28, 2007, in full view of the entire purport of the pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, and the Defendant occupied and used the rooftop 26 square meters (unauthorized building; hereinafter the same shall apply) among the real estate listed in the separate sheet from April 30, 204.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to order the plaintiff who seeks the exclusion of disturbance as co-owner to leave the rooftop of this case as a co-owner, barring special circumstances.

On the other hand, the defendant asserted that the defendant has a legitimate holder of the right to possess the right of possession on May 28, 2007, as the non-party C, the representative of the co-owner of the above real estate, and the lease deposit of 50,000 won on May 28, 2007, the monthly rent of 100,000 won, and the lease period of 27 May 2009 (the agreement that the non-party C, the representative of the above

According to the statement No. 1-1 of the evidence No. 1-2, it is recognized that a lease contract was concluded between the defendant and C as alleged by the defendant, but only the statement of No. 1-2, No. 6, and No. 7 was approved by a majority of co-owners' shares in the real estate stated in the attached list concerning the conclusion of the lease contract.

The above defenses are groundless since it is difficult to see that the above C was granted the right to lease from the above co-owners and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the defendant asserts that in order for the plaintiff to receive the order of the rooftop bank of this case under the premise that he is the tenant of the rooftop bank of this case, the defendant should pay the defendant the amount equivalent to 15 million won required for the renovation and repair of the rooftop bank of this case. However, as seen earlier, the defendant is not a legitimate tenant of the rooftop bank of this case, so the defendant's assertion on the above other premise is not reasonable, and therefore, the defendant's above assertion on the other premise is not acceptable.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.