1. The remaining amount after deducting the expenses for the auction from the proceeds of the sale by selling the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1;

1. Co-owned property partition claim

A. There is no dispute over the plaintiff's claim for partition of co-owned property (hereinafter "land of this case") as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 of the plaintiff's claim for partition of co-owned property, and the defendants filed for share

According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff is entitled to claim the division against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, at any time, among co-owners of the instant land. However, as seen above, the agreement with the Defendants on the division of co-owned property was not reached. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the division of co-owned property on the instant land is justified.

B. Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion 1) The remaining Defendants except Defendant B, who argued that exclusive use and benefit rights should be restricted from the Plaintiff’s claim for partition of the Plaintiff’s jointly owned property since the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the instant land where the right to exclusive use and benefit rights was waived. Although there exists a precedent on the grounds of the owner’s waiver of the right to use and benefit rights with respect to remedy under the unjust enrichment law, which is based on the fair principle, the logic should be understood as unrelated to the original claim for the protection of ownership, with the content of ownership in the future. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da228, Mar. 26, 2009), even if the Plaintiff acquired the instant land where the right to exclusive use and benefit rights was waived, the Defendants’ claim for partition of the Plaintiff’s jointly owned property cannot be rejected on such grounds. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.