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

A. On December 27, 2010, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with Nonparty C, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 520,000, and the lease term from January 19, 201 to January 18, 2012, on the lease agreement that the Defendant leases KRW 101 owned by Nonparty C (hereinafter “instant house”).

B. After that, the Defendant and C drafted a lease contract with the content of the said lease contract as a deposit of KRW 20 million without any rent, and obtained a fixed date as to the said lease contract on April 14, 201.

(hereinafter “instant lease contract”). C.

On the other hand, on November 25, 2010, the Plaintiff created a right to collateral security, setting the maximum debt amount of KRW 195 million, with respect to the instant housing. Upon the Plaintiff’s application, the voluntary auction procedure regarding the instant housing commenced on October 21, 2013.

(Seoul Northern District Court B). D.

On December 3, 2013, the Defendant filed an application for a report on rights and a demand for distribution with the above auction court. On August 1, 2014, the said auction court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that the Defendant, who is the lessee of the smallest amount, distributed KRW 20,00,000, and KRW 110,815,698 to the Plaintiff, who is the lessee of the fourth collective security, who is the lessee of the fourth collective security.

(hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). E.

The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against KRW 15,600,00 among the amount distributed to the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on August 14, 2014.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff 1’s assertion of the parties did not pay the remainder after residing for about three years and six months in the instant house and paying it only for one year. As such, the Defendant’s deduction of the unpaid rent from the Defendant’s lease deposit should be made. Since the instant distribution schedule is unfair by allocating the full amount of the lease deposit to the Defendant, the amount of the said distribution schedule should be corrected as stated in the purport of the claim.