1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) KRW 2,914,124 as well as 5% per annum from June 4, 2014 to January 12, 2016;

1. Basic facts

A. On November 26, 1976, the deceased deceased on November 26, 1976, and his children, including the Plaintiff, succeeded to the instant land jointly owned by the deceased.

Inheritance shares are 9/24 shares, E, and F shares, 4/24 shares, and G 7/24 shares.

B. On April 2, 2014, the Defendant is a co-owner who acquired shares in the aggregate of 8/24 shares in E and F among the instant land, and 7/24 shares in G on February 10, 2015, and owns shares in each of 15/24 shares in the instant land.

C. The defendant currently occupies and uses the land occupied by the defendant among the land in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 11, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for extradition

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant without prior consent from the Plaintiff, occupied and used the part of the land in the instant case without permission, and sought the transfer of the land in the Defendant’s possession.

B. Determination of the detailed method for the use and profit-making of the article jointly owned by the co-owners should be made by a majority of co-owners' shares, and a majority of co-owners did not consult with other co-owners about the method of management of the article jointly owned 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 specific part of the article jointly owned as the method of management of the article jointly owned.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff, who has a minority share, cannot claim the delivery of the land in possession of the Defendant to the Defendant, inasmuch as the Defendant is a majority co-owner who holds the 15/24 share of the instant land.

The plaintiff's above claim is without merit.

3. Determination as to the claim for return of unjust enrichment

A. The Plaintiff asserted as the Plaintiff.