1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Of the instant forest land, the Plaintiff owns 227/12240 shares, and the Defendant owns 7503/1240 shares, respectively.

B. There are the instant buildings owned by the Plaintiff on the instant land and the building owned by the Plaintiff on the land adjacent to Pyeongtaek-si D (hereinafter “instant adjacent land”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant occupied the land of this case without permission. Thus, the plaintiff, a co-owner of the land of this case, is seeking a judgment as to the act of preservation as stated in the main claim.

B. The relevant legal principles determine the specific method for the use and profit-making of the jointly owned property among the co-owners should be determined by a majority of co-owners' shares, and the majority of co-owners did not consult with the other co-owners about the method of management of the jointly owned property in advance.

Even if matters related to the management of the article jointly owned can be decided independently, it is legitimate for a majority of co-owners to decide to exclusively use and benefit from the article jointly owned as the method of management of the article jointly owned.

Therefore, the co-owners of a small number of shares that fall short of the majority can not claim the exclusion of disturbance against the co-owners of the majority share.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da216785 Decided May 16, 2014). C.

Judgment

In light of the aforementioned facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is a small number of co-owners of the land at issue, and the Defendant is a majority co-owner of the land at issue, and the Plaintiff cannot seek removal of the building at issue and delivery of the land at issue

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. Co-owners of the relevant legal doctrine regarding the cause of the claim shall use and benefit from all the co-owned property at the ratio of shares.