beta
Text
1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3...
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the cause of the claim is the co-owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and the Defendant occupied the instant real estate from February 6, 2015, and on February 1, 2018, leased the instant real estate from Nonparty C, a co-owner of the remainder of 1/2 shares among the instant real estate, and possessed it up to the day of the closing of argument. The fact that the rent of the instant real estate is 50,000 won per month does not conflict between the parties, or that the rent of the instant real estate is recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as stated in the evidence No. 1 and No. 2.
An act of the co-owners to lease the article jointly owned to another person is an act of management of the article jointly owned, and the act of management of the article jointly owned shall be determined by a majority of shares of the co-owners in accordance with Article 265 of the Civil Code. Thus, an act of lease by the co-owners who do not constitute a majority of shares of the co-owners is at least a invalid contract against the remaining co-owners, and the remaining
(See Supreme Court Decision 62Da1, Apr. 4, 1962). Therefore, if a third party entered into a lease agreement with a minority equity right holder on a real estate jointly owned with another co-owner, it is deemed that the third party occupies and uses the jointly owned real estate under an invalid lease agreement in relation to the other co-owners.
(2) In light of the aforementioned facts and the legal principles, the Defendant’s possession of the instant real estate under a lease agreement between the co-owners who are not the majority of the co-owners, the above lease agreement is null and void in relation to the Plaintiff, who is the other co-owners.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff seeking preservation of the jointly owned property.
In addition, the defendant, barring special circumstances, shares of the plaintiff out of the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the fees.