1. The remainder of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western-gu 296.9 square meter for the F site is put to an auction and the auction cost is deducted from the sale price.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff shares shares 2/15 shares, Defendant B/15 shares, Defendant C/6/15 shares, Defendant D2/15 shares, and Defendant E shares 2/15 shares in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F site (hereinafter “instant site”).

B. The instant site is a land located in a residential area, and is used as a site of one dong (126.15 square meters in a 1st floor, 2nd floor, 87.83 square meters in an underground room, 52.9 square meters in an underground room, and hereinafter “instant house”).

The instant housing is owned by the Defendants.

C. Article 57(1) of the Building Act and Article 29 of the Building Ordinance of Seoul Special Metropolitan City provide that “The area based on each co-owner’s share of the instant site shall be approximately 39.58 square meters, Defendant B 59.38 square meters, Defendant C 118.76 square meters, Defendant D, and E, respectively, shall be 39.58 square meters.”

On the other hand, the Plaintiff won the share of the instant site in the G voluntarily auction procedure at the Seoul Western District Court, and subsequently, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit to return unjust enrichment against the Defendants, who are co-owners of the instant housing, Seoul Western District Court 2013Da43892, thereby winning the judgment.

E. As of the date of closing argument of this case, the agreement on partition of co-owned property between the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not have been

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 4, Eul 1, 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As to the Plaintiff’s claim for partition as co-owner of the instant site, the Defendants (1) have legal superficies to own the instant housing; (2) according to the Plaintiff’s lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment, the Defendants paid the land rent and have been continuously paid up to now; thus, the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the prohibition of partition of the instant site was established implicitly; and (3) due to the payment of the land rent in accordance with the said lawsuit, the Defendants were the Defendants.