공유건물에 대한 철거청구소송

This study takes up the three following points of argument. (1) Is it thecompulsory joint litigation in an application of removal of a building inco-ownership? (2) What kind of litigation may the plaintiff submit to oneof co-owners? (3) How do the enforcement proceedings advance? Aboutsuch problems, this study advanced the argument based on the judicialprecedent and theory of our country and it of Japan which had big influenceon our country. The conclusion is arranged as follows. (1) The litigation to removal of a building in co-ownership is not thecompulsory joint litigation. (2) The removal obligation of the co-owners is indivisible obligation andthey have to carry out the obligation of all each one in principle. (3) When building in co-ownership is entered, the plaintiff may ask allor some of co-owners on a register for the building. (4) It is as follows when building in co-ownership is not entered. If acourt is also judged that part-owners are not in others and judgment is renderedwhen the plaintiff which does not know all of co-owners brings a litigationby making the part into a defendant, even if other co-owners become clearafter judgment, the effect of judgment to the co-owners arises in principle.