1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is 36.89 square meters of a single-story store among the buildings indicated in the list (attached Form 1) to the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant.

1. Basic facts common to the principal lawsuit and counterclaim;

A. In the building listed in the list (attached Form 1) (hereinafter “the building of this case”), the deceased, 1944, operated the “F” (hereinafter “the business of this case”), which runs the wholesale and retail business, such as horses, etc., and the Defendant, 1953, is a partner of A.

On June 14, 2016, the Plaintiff (A’s spouse) and the counterclaim Defendant (A’s children) taken over the litigation procedure of this case on July 6, 2016.

(However, the counterclaim defendant then withdrawn the principal lawsuit against the defendant). (B)

Of the instant building, the 146.04/1604 shares in the name of A and 13.23/1604 shares in the name of the Defendant were completed, but the ownership transfer registration was completed under the name of the Defendant. However, after the death of A, the Plaintiff inherited all of the said shares in the name of A through the consultation on inheritance, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the said shares in its name.

C. Business registration as to the instant business is made in the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant currently occupies 36.89 square meters of the 1st floor store among the instant buildings (hereinafter “instant store”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 7 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the whole purport of pleading

2. Claim for the principal lawsuit and determination thereof

A. According to the above facts, the plaintiff is a co-owner of a majority share holding 146.81/160 of the store of this case, and there was no prior consultation with other co-owners on the method of management of the jointly owned property.

Even if matters related to the management of the jointly owned property can be independently determined, and a majority of co-owners decide to exclusively use and benefit from the specific part of the jointly owned property is lawful as the method of management of the jointly owned property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da9738, May 14, 2002). Thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the above store to the Plaintiff upon the Plaintiff’s request.