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

A. On October 16, 2014, with respect to “Seoul, Dobong-gu D, 202” (hereinafter “instant real estate”), which was owned by C, a voluntary auction procedure was commenced on October 16, 2014.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that he is a lessee of the instant real estate during the above auction procedure, and filed a report on the right and demand for distribution.

C. On the date of distribution conducted on July 7, 2015, this court prepared a distribution schedule, such as KRW 19,932,814, to Defendant Scholarship Construction Co., Ltd., the person having the right to demand distribution; KRW 1,772,814 to Defendant Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., the person having the right to demand distribution; KRW 6,015,618; and KRW 839,602 to Defendant Hyundai Card Co., Ltd., the person having the right to demand distribution; and KRW 839,602 to the Defendant New Card Co., Ltd., the person having the right to demand distribution;

On July 8, 2015, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of the aforementioned distribution, and stated an objection against the entire amount of each distribution to the Defendants, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a genuine lessee who has leased the instant real estate in KRW 30 million, and thus, the said distribution schedule, excluding the Plaintiff’s dividends, should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff’s lease of the instant real estate amounting to KRW 30 million solely on the sole basis of the descriptions of No. 1 and No. 2-1 and No. 2, which are acknowledged by Eul based on the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in No. 1 through 5 and No. 1 and No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

① As the owner of the instant real estate, C leased the said real estate to the Plaintiff is the former husband of the Plaintiff.

② As to the instant real estate between the Plaintiff and C,