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

A. On December 16, 2013, the Defendant filed an application for a voluntary auction with respect to the D Apartment Nos. 102 and 901 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, which is the non-party C’s ownership. On December 16, 2013, the Defendant rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction procedure following the said voluntary decision to commence the auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

B. In the instant auction procedure, on December 18, 2013, a decision was rendered on March 10, 2014 with the completion date for demand for distribution, which was the final date for demand for distribution as of March 10, 2014, and the said decision was publicly announced on December 18, 2013.

C. On March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that it is a lessee who entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty C with respect to the instant apartment, and filed a report on the right to demand the distribution of the lease deposit and an application for demand for distribution.

In the instant auction procedure, Kuyang Branch of the District Court distributed 220,697,789 won in the second order among the amounts to be actually distributed on November 7, 2014, to the Defendant. The Plaintiff prepared a distribution schedule with the content that the Plaintiff would be excluded from dividends (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

E. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against KRW 16,00,00 among the amount distributed to the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on November 12, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff is a genuine lessee who is entitled to enter into a lease agreement with Nonparty C on the instant apartment and to be protected under the Housing Lease Protection Act that has paid the deposit. As such, the Plaintiff asserts that under the instant distribution schedule, the amount of KRW 16,00,000 equivalent to the small amount of the deposit recognized as the priority repayment pursuant to the Housing Lease Protection Act should be reduced among the amount of dividends to the Defendant, and that the instant distribution schedule should be revised to distribute it to the Plaintiff.