2. As to the auction case of Seoul Southern District Court D, this Court held on September 2015.

A. On September 22, 2015, the date of distribution of the instant auction case with respect to the real estate owned by the Plaintiff A, a distribution schedule was prepared to distribute KRW 78,773,224 to the Defendant.

B. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff Company raised an objection to the distribution that the whole amount of the dividend to the Defendant, who is a person entitled to provisional seizure, is excessive, and that it should be distributed to the Plaintiff Company, a senior lessee.

C. Dividends against the Defendant under the instant distribution schedule are the amount under the provisional seizure against real estate (hereinafter “provisional seizure”). The instant provisional seizure case is the Seoul Northern District Court 201Kadan1293 (hereinafter “instant provisional seizure”). The instant provisional seizure case is the Seoul Northern District Court 2013Kahap1567 (Plaintiff C, Defendant A, and Mediation Intervenor B). The instant case was established as the conciliation on July 26, 2013 (hereinafter “instant conciliation”).

In the instant dividends, the Defendant submitted “one hundred twenty (55,00,000 won of principal and twenty (20) per annum for delay damages calculated from July 26, 2013 to September 22, 2015 regarding the said principal under the instant conciliation,” as the statement of claim settlement, the sum of twenty (3), seventy (773,224) won per annum.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 6 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the plaintiff A appeared on the date of distribution of this case, since he did not raise any objection to the distribution schedule of this case, the plaintiff A is not eligible to file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution with the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit is unlawful.

3. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the plaintiff company's claim, if the plaintiff paid KRW 55,00,000 to the defendant, he shall perform the obligation under the conciliation of this case, and otherwise, he did not determine the plaintiff's delay damages in the conciliation (the defendant filed an application for decision of correction with respect to the conciliation of this case, but dismissed).