1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant leased the instant land under title trust from Cmpha to Cmpha, and is a person residing on that ground by leaving the instant building on that ground.

B. On the other hand, around June 28, 2018, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 1/5 of the instant land.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 evidence, Eul 1 through 6, the whole purport of pleading]

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim. As the Defendant resided on the instant land while owning the instant building, the Plaintiff sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent by the removal of the instant building, the delivery of the instant land, and the delivery of the instant land, on the ground of the preservation act.

3. Determination

(a) Determination of the detailed method for use and profit-making of the common property between the co-owners shall be made with respect to the management of the common property by a majority of co-owners' shares, and a majority of co-owners did not have consultation with other co-owners on the method of management of the common property

Even if matters relating to the management of the jointly owned property can be independently determined, the determination that a majority of co-owners decide to exclusively use and benefit from a specific part of the jointly owned property is lawful as a method of management of the jointly owned property. Therefore, a minority co-owner of a majority share cannot seek exclusion from possession, such as removal or removal of the building used or benefitting by the possessor, against the possessor permitted to use or benefit from the majority share.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the defendant cannot seek removal of the building of this case or delivery of the land of this case against the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for removal of the building of this case and the claim for delivery of the land of this case are without merit.

B. In addition, co-owners of majority shares are co-owners.