2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On June 17, 2015, a court of execution prepared and presented a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 281,017,817 to the Plaintiff, who is the applicant creditor and the mortgagee, and KRW 14,000,000 to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”), which was the date of distribution, the court of execution stated an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3, 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's ground for claim

A. The Defendant is the most lessee, and even if true lessee, the instant 101 and 102 were not residential buildings, and thus did not meet the requirements to receive the highest repayment as a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

Therefore, the instant dividend table should be corrected by striking the dividend amount against the Defendant and distributing the said dividend amount to the Plaintiff.

B. The act of setting up a right of lease under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act against Nos. 101 and 102, the primary claim C, the sole property of which is the property in excess of the obligation, constitutes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, who is the creditor, and must be revoked.

In addition, the instant dividend table should be corrected to delete the dividend amount to the defendant and distribute the dividend amount to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the primary claim is as to whether the Defendant is the most lessee or not, and the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection to a distribution is in accordance with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. Therefore, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.