A. On June 27, 2011, the Defendant acquired 1/2 shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and the Plaintiff acquired the remainder of 1/2 shares among the instant real estate on February 25, 2019.

There was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the division method of the instant real estate, the specific method of use and profit-making, etc.

B. From February 25, 2019, the Defendant occupied and used the entire real estate of this case since the Plaintiff acquired 1/2 shares among the instant real estate.

The rent corresponding to the share ratio of 1/2 of the instant real estate is KRW 1,60,00 per month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The facts recognized under paragraph (1) and the purport of whole pleadings shall be considered comprehensively; and

The Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may seek a partition of the instant real estate against the Defendant, who is another co-owner.

As to the method of division, the plaintiff is seeking an auction division, and the defendant has no particular objection against it.

In the partition of co-owned property, in principle, the division in kind has not been claimed in kind among co-owners of the real estate of this case, and no other reasonable method of division in kind is found.

In light of the nature, location, area of the instant real estate, the share ratio of co-owners, and all other circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, it is reasonable to deem that it constitutes a case where it is difficult or inappropriate to divide the instant real estate in kind, and thus, it is the most fair and reasonable method to choose an auction division.

Therefore, the real estate of this case is sold to the plaintiff and the defendant at the ratio of 1/2, after deducting the auction cost from the auction price.

3. According to the facts of recognition of the claim for return of unjust enrichment under paragraph (1), the Defendant is exclusively responsible for the instant real estate without consultation with the Plaintiff.