1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the first floor of 506.75 square meters underground among the buildings listed in the attached list;

(b)21,214,178 won and ;

1. On or around June 2011, the Plaintiff’s basic facts: (a) sectional owners (total number of 20 households 101, 102, 103, 104, 201, 302, 401, 502, 501, 502, 602, 701, 702, 801, 802, 802, 902, 901, 902, 104, 104, 201, 202, 302, 302, 401, 402, 502, 602, 702, 801, 802, 901, 902, 902, hereinafter “the instant building”); and (b) there is no dispute between the Defendant and the parties to the instant parking lot under the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter “the instant parking lot”).

2. Determination

A. In India and unjust enrichment 1), in a case where a third party illegally occupies the site or accessory facilities of the building belonging to the common area or the common area of sectional owners, the legal relationship between the removal of disturbance and the return of unjust enrichment or the claim for damages against the third party is not a legal relationship attributable to the sectional owner, but a sectional owner is entitled to first or in the name of all sectional owners, respectively. Furthermore, when a sectional ownership relationship is established with respect to the aggregate building, the management body is organized under the law as well as an organization with the aim of implementing matters concerning the management of the building and its site and its accessory facilities, and when the manager is appointed in the resolution of the management body meeting, the manager may act on behalf of the management body in relation to the business execution (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da1774, Jun. 24, 2003). According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is entitled to the portion of possession of the building in this case to the plaintiff who is the management body of the building in this case.