b) the remainder after deducting the cost of auction from the proceeds of the auction by attaching the real estate listed in the list to the auction.

A. On May 29, 2009, Nonparty C completed the registration of initial ownership of the instant apartment on the instant apartment on May 29, 2009, and on June 4, 2010, Nonparty C resided in the said apartment with Nonparty D, a child suffering from mental disorders.

B. B. On April 6, 201, as C’s child and D’s sibling, the Defendant purchased the instant apartment from C, KRW 1.2 billion, each of the purchase price from C, and KRW 1.2 billion. However, under the condition that C continues to use the said apartment in a deposit amount of KRW 600 million, the Defendant paid KRW 300 million to C only the purchase price. However, in lieu of the payment of KRW 360,000,000, the Plaintiff agreed to succeed to the collateral security debt amount of KRW 360,000,000 for the said apartment.

C. On June 23, 2011, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on each one-half portion of the instant apartment.

C died on September 10, 2014, and D died on October 5, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff did not reach an agreement on the method of partition between the plaintiff and the defendant, who is the co-owner of the apartment of this case, as to the claim for partition of co-owned property. Thus, the plaintiff has the right to co-owned property partition against the defendant on the ground of

The court may make a reasonable division according to the share ratio of co-owners according to the free discretion, taking into account the co-ownership relation or all the circumstances of the things that are the objects thereof. Considering that the apartment of this case cannot be divided in kind, the source and the share ratio of the defendant are the same, and there is no data to verify the market price of the apartment of this case, it is deemed the most fair and reasonable to order the auction of the apartment of this case to distribute the price.

B. The return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the judgment on the claim for return of unjust enrichment was benefiting without any legal ground.