1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "4,711/4,695" of Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as "4,695/4,711"; "the plaintiff's building" of Part 5 is as "the defendant's building"; "the defendant's land" of Part 5, 14, 16, 18, 6, 19, and 7, 3 is entirely dismissed as "the plaintiff's land"; the plaintiff's assertion added at the court of first instance and its decision are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of the same as Paragraph 3.

B. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff, who is a minority right holder of the jointly owned property, can seek delivery or evacuation of the jointly owned property as a management act of the jointly owned property, since the plaintiff acquired 16/4711 shares of the plaintiff's land after the completion of the prescription period, even after the completion of the prescription period. The plaintiff acquired 16/1 shares of the plaintiff's land on November 25, 2009. However, it is legitimate as the management method of the jointly owned property to determine that the majority of the co-owners can independently use and benefit from the land without consultation with other co-owners, and to determine that the specific shares of the co-owned land should be exclusively used and benefit from the part of the co-owners at the time of the completion of the prescription period. Thus, a third party who acquired a small number of shares of the co-owned land that do not reach the majority from the other co-owners at the time of the completion of the prescription period, with respect to the remaining shares, and thus, can not claim removal of the ownership from the land and its transfer (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da36536.