The law protected the owners of large shares of apartments from "residents"

Considering the case, the court noted that neither earlier nor now, the disputed living space was not a place of residence for the plaintiff. At the same time, the procedure for using real estate was not established by the previous owner of the share. It was also taken into account that none of the rooms corresponded in size to the plaintiff's share. However, the applicant recalled that the insufficiency of the size of the share is not yet a reason to refuse settlement. However, the court replied to this that in the case when the living space has several owners, it is necessary to link Art. 288 of the Civil Code and Art. 17 LCD (residential premises are intended for human habitation) from Art. 247 of the Civil Code (on the ownership of property in shared ownership) and agree on joint ownership by agreement of the parties or by a court decision. In this case, the owner may own property in proportion to his share. However,