1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall be as follows: (1) The defendant shall be as stated in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased D (the deceased on June 30, 2009, hereinafter “the deceased”) had the Plaintiffs as their children between the former spouse E and the former spouse, and completed the marriage report with the Defendant on June 11, 2009.

B. On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a petition for adjudication on the division of inherited property against the Defendant as the District Court 2013Dhap17 against the Defendant regarding the deceased’s inherited property. On February 9, 2015, the said court rendered a judgment that each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) was divided into shares owned by the Plaintiffs at their respective 2,953/10,000 shares, and that the Defendant was jointly owned at the rate of 4,094/10,000 shares, and

C. From the time when the deceased died to the present time, the Defendant leased the apartment as indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) to the present time and obtained rent or other profit from the lessee, and exclusively uses and benefits from the apartment of this case as stated in paragraph (2) of the attached Table (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) by allowing the lessee to use the apartment of this case to his mother’s child.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 8, Eul evidence 4 and 10 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

(a) Even if a co-owner owns shares in relation to the co-owned property, the co-owned property cannot be exclusively possessed, used and profit-making without consultation with other co-owners. Thus, even if shares held by another co-owner fall short of a majority, the other co-owner may demand the person possessing the co-owned property as an act of preservation of the co-owned property to deliver it as co-owned property.

(2) In light of the above facts, the plaintiffs and the defendant are co-ownership owners of each of the real estate of this case, and the defendant exclusively uses and benefits from each of the real estate of this case. Thus, the defendant is a preservation act of jointly owned property of this case, and the defendant is a preservation act of jointly owned property of this case.