beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation regarding the instant case is as follows, and the court's explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding to the following determination of Paragraph 2 as to the plaintiffs' defenses prior to the merits of the counterclaim, and thus, citing it by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Article 3-15, 17, 1, 5 of the first instance court's ruling, 3-15, 17 of the table, 5 of the table "O" and 5-1 of the 5th page "W" shall be respectively referred to as "L".
The first to the second to fourth parts of the second to fourth parts are as follows: “Although the Defendants asserted that they interfere with the construction of the K land by obstructing the passage of L land, the Plaintiffs are sufficient to claim the prohibition of interference with passage of L land if they are in the same situation as they asserted, it is sufficient to claim the prohibition of interference with passage of land, and since the Plaintiffs have filed such claim, there is no benefit to seek the prohibition of interference with the construction of the K land separately.”
In the end of the 6th century, “A co-owner of a half-class share may independently determine matters concerning the management of the jointly owned property even if there was no prior consultation with other co-owners on the method of management of the jointly owned property. As such, determining that a majority of co-owners intend to exclusively use and profit from the jointly owned property is legitimate as the method of management of the jointly owned property, and therefore, a co-owner of a minority share, which falls short of the majority, may not claim the exclusion of interference against the co-owner of the jointly owned property, such as transfer of the jointly owned property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da216785, May 16, 201): Provided, That the content of the use and profit should not be up to the extent of “disposition other than management” or “revision” due to the inherent change in the existing form of the jointly owned property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da33638, Nov. 27, 2001).
The first 7th 3th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth.