1. The amount remaining after deducting the auction expenses from the proceeds of the sale of the real estate listed in the annex 1 list;

In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the provisional number), the part of the claim for partition of co-owned property is jointly owned by the plaintiff (appointed party) and the Appointed H (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff, etc.") and the defendants. The shares are as shown in the annexed list No. 2. The real estate in this case is the building and its site, and the plaintiff, etc.'s claim for partition of co-owned property, the defendants did not express any opinion about the partition of co-owned property, and there is no counter

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to divide the instant real estate, which is jointly owned at the request of the plaintiff et al., who is co-owners of the instant real estate. Since the instant real estate and its site are divided in kind, the value of the instant real estate is likely to be significantly reduced, it is reasonable to divide the instant real estate into money by auction.

The Plaintiff et al. asserted that the portion of the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rental fee against Defendant E is taking possession of, and making profits from, the entire real estate in excess of his/her share from June 12, 2014 (the date on which the Plaintiff et al. acquired the share of the instant real estate) to the present day, and thus, the above Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment corresponding to

Accordingly, even if Defendant E occupies and uses the instant real estate from June 12, 2014 to the present date, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the above Defendant’s domicile was occupied and used or used, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact that: (a) the record on the evidence No. 6 (the amount of electricity charges exceeding KRW 2,600 to KRW 2,700 per month was generated from the instant real estate; and (b) the price was automatically transferred from the account in the I’s name).

Therefore, Defendant E uses and benefits from the entire real estate of this case.