beta
Text
The judgment below
This part of the case is reversed, and this part of the case is to the Seoul High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The method of determining the specific method for the use and profit-making of the jointly-owned property among the co-owners with respect to Qaju-si 15,868§³ (hereinafter “the instant land”) shall be determined by a majority of co-owners’ shares, as matters concerning the management of the jointly-owned property. A majority of co-owners’ shares did not, in advance, have agreed with other co-owners on the method of management
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 article jointly owned as a method of management of the article jointly owned.
Therefore, the co-owners of a small number of shares that fall short of the majority can not claim the exclusion of disturbance against the co-owners of the majority share.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 200Da33638, 33645 Decided November 27, 2001; 2002Da9738 Decided May 14, 2002, etc.). According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court, the Defendant owned 2,430/4,80 shares of the majority of the instant land No. 1, and the Plaintiffs owned the remainder of the shares. Since March 1, 1978, the Defendant occupied the said land from around March 1, 1978 to the site where the ArmyY was permanently stationed, and it was occupied and used as a site until now by constructing a government official facility on the ground.
Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the plaintiffs cannot request the defendant who is the majority equity right holder who is permitted to use and benefit from the above land as the method of managing the above land pursuant to Article 17 of the Protection of Military Bases and Installations Act to completely exclude the possession of the above land, except in extenuating circumstances.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.