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

A. On December 24, 2010, in order to secure a loan claim of KRW 1.60,000,000 against C, the Plaintiff obtained from C a registration of creation of a mortgage over KRW 164,20,000 (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) regarding D No. 1 Dong 501, Nam-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant real property”).

B. Since then, C delayed the payment of interest on the above loan, the Plaintiff filed an application for a voluntary auction of real estate on the instant real estate with the Incheon District Court B based on the instant collateral security, and received a voluntary decision to commence auction from the said court on May 1, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

C. In the instant auction procedure, the Defendant asserted that the executing court himself was the small lessee who leased the instant real estate from C in the deposit amount of KRW 24 million, and filed a report on the right and demand for distribution.

In distributing the amount of KRW 80,976,212 to be actually distributed on the date of distribution made on January 9, 2014, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) with the content that distributes the amount of KRW 20,400,000 to the Defendant who applied for a demand for distribution as a small lessee; KRW 120,40,000 to the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Incheon Metropolitan City, which is the holder of the right to deliver; and KRW 58,85,812 to the Plaintiff who is the holder of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant

E. Accordingly, on the aforementioned date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the amount of KRW 22 million against the Defendant, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on January 15, 2014, within one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant merely lent the name of the tenant to the third party and concluded a false rental agreement with C, and thus, it is unlawful for the executing court to regard the Defendant as the small lessee and distribute the amount of KRW 22 million to the third party.

Therefore, the instant distribution schedule is against the Defendant.