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

A. On June 1, 2010 regarding the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul District Court No. 2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on June 1, 2010, the maximum debt amount of KRW 156,000,00, the debtor E-mortgage, and the mortgagee, and the Defendant filed an application for voluntary auction on the instant real estate based on the foregoing collateral security, and the decision of voluntary auction was rendered to the Seoul Western District Court B on December 3, 2012, and the registration of the decision of voluntary auction was completed on the same day.

B. In the above auction procedure, the above auction court, on December 26, 2013, prepared a distribution schedule with the content of distributing the amount of KRW 20,00,000 among the amount to be distributed actually to the mortgagee F of small amount of KRW 94,149,152, and KRW 112,480 among the amount to be distributed to the mortgagee of small amount of KRW 112,480, to the person holding the right to deliver (the pertinent tax) in the second order.

C. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against KRW 20,00,00 among the amount distributed to the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution on January 2, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 7, 8 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a genuine small lessee who concluded a lease agreement on the instant real estate and paid deposit amount of KRW 25,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff. Thus, even if the right to preferential reimbursement was acknowledged pursuant to Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, the Plaintiff did not pay the Plaintiff the amount of dividends of KRW 74,036,672 to the Defendant, a junior lower-ranking right holder, to delete the amount of dividends of KRW 20,000 and distribute the amount to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is not a genuine lessee who can be protected under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

B. As to whether the Plaintiff is a genuine lessee with respect to the instant real estate, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff and C, as well as the written evidence Nos. 1 and 3.