1. The plaintiff shall sell the real estate listed in the separate sheet to an auction and deduct the auction cost from the price.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 24, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of “sale due to voluntary auction on October 19, 2017,” with respect to 1/2 shares of the instant real estate.

B. The Plaintiff purchased the shares of D in the auction procedure on the instant real estate, and the Defendant, the owner of the 1/2 share out of the instant real estate, continues to reside in the said real estate.

C. The rent is KRW 2,098,000 per month for October 24, 2017 to October 18, 2018, and the rent as of October 19, 2018 is KRW 2,572,00 per month.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, results of the commission of appraisal to E by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the claim for partition of co-owned property

A. According to the facts established prior to the creation of the right to partition of co-owned property, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, may file a claim against the Defendant, who is another co-owner, for partition of the instant real estate jointly owned pursuant to Article 269

B. In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings of this case, such as the evidence adopted prior to the method of partition of co-owned property and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, that the real estate of this case is an apartment, so it is difficult to divide it in kind because it is an apartment, and that the defendant wants to reside continuously, it is reasonable to view that the real estate of this case constitutes a case where it is impossible to divide it in kind in kind or where it is likely to suffer a decrease in the value due to the spot division, because it is difficult to find the method of spot division or other appropriate method of division corresponding to the share ratio of the plaintiff and the defendant, and therefore, it seems fair and reasonable to divide the price according to the share ratio of the plaintiff and the defendant after selling the real estate of this case

3. Determination on the claim for return of unjust enrichment is recognized.