beta
Text
1. The defendant shall deliver the building as stated in the attached Form to the plaintiff.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3.Paragraph 1.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant's possession of real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3, D, E, and F owned by the plaintiff, non-party C, D, E, and F (hereinafter "the building of this case") can be acknowledged.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the plaintiff is entitled to seek delivery of the building of this case against the defendant who occupies the building of this case as a co-ownership right holder of the building of this case as a preservation act. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.
B. The defendant's defense is asserted to the effect that, since the defendant leased the building of this case from the co-ownership right holder C, the right to share the building of this case, there is a legitimate right to occupy the building of this case.
In light of the records in Gap evidence No. 1, the fact that the defendant leased the building of this case from Eul is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant leased the building of this case from Eul, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (the records in Eul evidence No. 1). Even if the defendant leased the building of this case from Eul, if the co-owner leased the building of this case from Eul, the co-owner's lease of the building of this case by the co-owner to another person shall be determined by the majority of co-owner's share as a management act of the co-owner (Article 265 of the Civil Act). According to the records in Gap evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the co-ownership of Eul as to the building of this case did not reach the majority of 4.6/20.94 share. There is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the majority co-owner agreed to enter into a lease agreement between the defendant and C, and thus the lease agreement between the defendant and C is null and void as the consent of the majority co-owner.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff .