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

1. Facts without dispute;

A. On September 9, 1988, the Plaintiff and Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on the same day with co-ownership shares as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On December 22, 2004, Defendant B completed on December 21, 2004 the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of shares (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) on the part of Defendant C on the ground of a pre-sale agreement as of December 21, 2004.

C. On July 16, 2013, Defendant D: (a) deposit amounting to KRW 80,000,000; (b) monthly renting KRW 300,000; and (c) the same year for the same year for the entire area of 79.34 square meters per floor among Defendant B and the instant real estate (the part entered in the real estate registration book as an appurtenant building is destroyed); and

7. From October 20 to July 20, 2015, a lease agreement is concluded, and from that point, the above first floor is occupied with Defendant E (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

The spouse of the defendant B is F, and the plaintiff and F were born to the same mother, but his father is different.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the claim in this case is as follows: (a) Defendant B sought a partition of the above real estate against Defendant B as co-owner of the instant real estate; (b) Defendant B obtained exclusive profits from leasing the above real estate, and thus, it should return the amount equivalent to the rent corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share ratio to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. (c) The provisional registration in this case is null and void as it was concluded in collusion with Defendant C in order to obstruct the Plaintiff’s partition of co-owned property; (d) even if not, the right to complete the purchase and sale of the instant

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks cancellation of the above provisional registration against Defendant C by subrogation of Defendant B.

3. The instant lease agreement was concluded by Defendant B at will without the Plaintiff’s consent and thus null and void, and even if it is not so, it was a lease agreement with the expiration period.