1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The facts of recognition are as follows: ① The Defendant, along with H, stored a road boundary sign (hereinafter “weigh”) on the part of “B” in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 1 among the 3, 4, 5, 6, and 3 of the attached Form No. 4 among the 1, 4, 6, and 3 of the attached Form No. 3 among the 1, 239 square meters in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, and the 931 square meters in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 1.

② The Plaintiff and the Defendant are one-third equity right holders, respectively, of D 1,239 square meters and E 931 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”).

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2, 4, 6, and 8 (including all types of numbers), the testimony of Gap witness G of the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant arbitrarily occupied the instant land, which is jointly owned without the Plaintiff’s consent, a right holder of another right, by piling up part of the instant land.

Therefore, the plaintiff is an act of preserving jointly-owned property and can demand removal of a stone fence against the defendant, so the defendant is obligated to remove the stone fence from the plaintiff.

B. (1) Even if a co-owner holding a minority shares or a person claiming the registration of transfer of ownership in relation to the minority shares, the co-owner cannot exclusively possess, use, and benefit from the jointly-owned property without consultation with other co-owners. Thus, even if the shares owned by the other co-owners fall short of the majority of the jointly-owned property, the other co-owners may demand the delivery of the jointly-owned property as an act of preservation of the jointly-owned property, even if

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da9392, 93Da9408, Mar. 22, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 2002Da57935, Nov. 13, 2003; etc.). In addition, even if shares owned by another co-owner fall short of the majority of shares, the other co-owner is an act of preserving jointly owned properties against a minority co-owner who possesses the jointly owned property without consultation.