1. The Defendants are to the Plaintiff:

A. The current status of the attached building on the 1st floor of the building indicated in the attached building shall also be jointly and severally.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant C are siblings.

B. The Plaintiff is a co-owner of 3/10 shares of the instant building.

C. From November 8, 2007, Defendant C used the said building part as the office of the Plaintiff Company D (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”). A around March 10, 2015, Defendant C entered into a joint use agreement with Defendant B on the part of the instant building (However, the joint use agreement was entered into as of April 9, 2015) with Defendant B, who received KRW 200,000 each month from Defendant B, and occupied and used each part of the instant building and the instant building as one-half area.

At present, Defendant C operates a non-party company’s office in approximately 15 square meters of the instant building part, which is equivalent to 1/2, and Defendant B runs sales business, such as a trade name mushroom, in the remaining part of the said building part, excluding the part occupied and used by Defendant C as the office of the non-party company.

[Based on the recognition] between the plaintiff and the defendant B: The judgment deemed as a confession (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act) and the defendant C: The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 4 (including the provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, barring special circumstances, the Defendants, who jointly possess the part of the building of this case, are jointly and severally liable to deliver the part of the building of this case to the Plaintiff seeking exclusion of disturbance as an act of preserving the building of this case, which is jointly and severally owned. 2) As to the determination of Defendant C’s defense, Defendant C was actually a donation of some of the shares in the building of this case from the deceased F, his father, but was unable to complete the registration of ownership transfer due to credit problems, instead, the Plaintiff et al.