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

A. The Plaintiff is the owner who acquired the ownership of the land Nos. 101, 102, 601, and 701 of the land Nos. 601 and 701 of the land Nos. 6 of the building Nos. 601 on the ground of the land No. 601 of the building No. 601 in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu. The Defendant is the mortgagee of the foregoing building No. 6

B. On April 18, 2014, the Suwon District Court rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction on each of the above real estate, and the said court drafted a distribution schedule to distribute the amount of KRW 23,547,484 to the Defendant as a mortgagee of the right to collateral security under Articles 601 and 701 above on February 26, 2015.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, entry of Eul evidence No. 2 through 5, purport of the whole pleadings】

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the amount of dividends against the Defendant should be deleted and the Defendant’s dividends should be distributed to the Plaintiff, on the grounds that a lease agreement between the former owner F and the Defendant was concluded with respect to the above Non-101 and Non-102, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the above lease agreement and has the right to rent to the Defendant.

On the other hand, according to Article 151 of the Civil Execution Act, an objection may be raised as to the distribution schedule on the basis of the substantive reasons that the existence, amount, distribution order, distribution ratio, and dividend amount of the creditor's claims stated in the distribution schedule prepared in a procedurally legitimate manner are unreasonable. The plaintiff's assertion does not dispute the existence and scope of the defendant's claims. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is without merit without need to further examine.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.