1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a) deliver each real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) 34,627,706 won and July 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased D (the deceased on June 30, 2009, hereinafter “the deceased”) had the Plaintiffs as their children between the former spouse E and the former spouse, and completed the marriage report with the Defendant on June 11, 2009.

B. On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a petition for an adjudication on the division of inherited property against the Defendant as the District Court Decision 2013Dhap17 against the Defendant regarding the deceased’s inherited property. On February 9, 2015, the said court rendered a judgment that each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet is divided into shares of 2,953/10,000 shares, and that the Defendant is divided into shares of 4,094/10,000 shares, and the said

C. From the time when the deceased died to the present day, the Defendant leased the apartment as indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) to the present time, and acquired rent, etc. from the lessee, and exclusively uses and benefits from the apartment of this case as stated in paragraph (2) of the attached Table (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) by allowing its mother to use the apartment of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 10 (including partial numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

(a) Even if a co-owner owns shares in relation to the co-owned property, the co-owned property cannot be exclusively possessed, used and profit-making without consultation with other co-owners. Thus, even if shares held by another co-owner fall short of a majority, the other co-owner may demand the person possessing the co-owned property as an act of preservation of the co-owned property to deliver it as co-owned property.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da9392 delivered on March 22, 1994, etc.). According to the above facts, the plaintiffs and the defendant are co-ownership owners of the apartment and the housing of this case, and the defendant exclusively uses and benefits from the apartment and the housing of this case. Thus, the defendant is seeking the exclusion of interference with the real estate of this case as an act of preserving the jointly owned property.