1. The remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the auction costs from the proceeds of the auction by attaching the value of 76.4 square meters to the auction in Daegu Nam-gu, Daegu-gu;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s share 7.18/23.1, Defendant B’s share 12.92/23.1, Nonparty 75/1039.5, Defendant D’s share 30/1039.5, Defendant E’s share 18/1039.5, Defendant E’s share 12/1039.5, and Defendant F’s share 12/1039.5.

B. However, Non-party H died on January 7, 2018, and Defendant E and Defendant F jointly inherited the shares owned by Non-party H according to the statutory inheritance shares, which are co-inheritorss of Defendant D, Defendant C, Defendant C, and Defendant F, the male and female heir of Defendant C, Defendant C, and Defendant C.

C. The above B.

Defendant C with respect to the instant site upon the inheritance under subsection (i) 25/1039.5 (i.e., 75/1039.5 X 1/3, all X 1/3, and all inheritance areas from Non-Party H) and Defendant D had 5/1039.5 [ his previous shares = 30/1039.5/1039.5 (=75/1039.5/1039.5/103) of his previous shares] Defendant E had 33/1039.5 [18/1039.5/103 of his previous shares = 15/1039.5/1039.5 (=75/1039.5/1030) of his previous shares], Defendant C had 22/1039.5 [12/1039/105/305/105/37.139/105/195]

The building site of this case has a unregistered house without permission, and this house is a house which Defendant B, his father, and its ownership is not clear. At the time of the closure of the pleading of this case, there is no person who resides therein at the time of the closure of the pleading of this case.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. In accordance with Article 268 of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff, one of the co-owners of the instant site, may request the Defendants, who are other co-owners, to divide the instant site, which is co-owned property.

There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had consulted on the method of division with the Defendants before the filing of the lawsuit in this case, but there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had consulted on the method of division with the Defendants after the filing of the lawsuit in this case.