A. The Plaintiff’s right to collateral security 1) The Plaintiff’s owner of the instant apartment on March 5, 2008, D is the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) against G, its creditor, the maximum debt amount of KRW 75,00,000.

(2) On April 7, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the instant collateral security claim from G, and G notified D of the said assignment of claims on April 9, 2014.

B. 1) On March 12, 2014, Kancheon Life Insurance Co., Ltd., the first collateral security right of the apartment of the instant apartment, was rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction of the instant apartment as an Ansan District Court C (hereinafter “instant auction”) (hereinafter “instant auction”).

(2) The Defendant asserted that he leased the smaller room of the apartment of this case in KRW 30,00,000,000, and filed a report on the right and demand for distribution as a small lessee at the auction of this case.

3) On November 20, 2014, the said court rendered a distribution schedule with the content that distributing KRW 12,00,000 to the Defendant, who is the lessee of small claims, among KRW 160,295,547, the amount to be actually distributed at the instant auction procedure, and KRW 41,150,578 to the Plaintiff, who is the mortgagee of small claims, in the fourth order, in the second order (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

【Preparation. 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry in Gap evidence 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings.】

2. Summary of parties' assertion on the issues of the instant case

A. Whether the main issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant is the genuine lessee or the most lessee

B. On August 14, 2006, the Defendant leased the small room of the instant apartment from D, and paid KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant. From that time, the Defendant actually resided in the instant apartment, and completed the move-in report on the instant apartment and received the fixed date of the lease agreement.

Therefore, as the defendant is a genuine tenant, the distribution schedule of this case was prepared properly.

3. Determination No. 1.