1. The Defendant shall issue to the Plaintiff each point of the attached Form 1, 2, and 3 with regard to the land size of 132 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is a non-corporate group, and from June 2005, the "A child-care center" (hereinafter referred to as "child-care center") is opened and operated on the D ground of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

The Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government land of 132 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "instant land") is the land located immediately adjacent to the site of a childcare center.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant shared the instant land at the rate of 1/2.

The Defendant, among the land of this case, installed a steel fence with a height of 2 m high from 2m above the upper part of the line connecting each point of 1, 2, and 3 of the annexed drawing Nos. 18m and 2, and 4 of the same drawing Nos. 2 and 4 of the same drawing Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to prevent the Plaintiff from entering.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion as to facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the entire argument as to the removal of pents and the claim for delivery of land, the defendant installs pents on the land of this case and occupies and uses the land of this case exclusively.

Therefore, as a 1/2 equity right holder of the instant land, the Plaintiff seeks removal of the instant fences, etc. and delivery of the instant land as the act of preserving the jointly-owned property.

Judgment

Even if a co-owner holding shares in the land or a building or a person holding a right to claim the registration of transfer of ownership for such shares, he/she cannot exclusively possess, use, and benefit from the jointly owned property without consultation with other co-owners. Thus, the other co-owners may demand the delivery of the jointly owned property from the person holding the jointly owned property even if his/her shares fall short of the majority.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da9392, 9408 delivered on March 22, 1994, etc.). As seen earlier, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are co-owners of the instant land, and the Defendant installed the instant pents and prevents the Plaintiff from entering the instant land.

Therefore, it is true.