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

A. On May 26, 2010, the Plaintiff lent KRW 140 million to C, and completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, which caused KRW 182,00,000,00 to the maximum debt amount with respect to D buildings owned (road name address, Seoul Northern-gu, Seoul Northern-gu) No. 402 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. Since then, the Plaintiff applied for a voluntary auction of real estate on the instant real estate to Seoul Northern District Court B, based on the foregoing collateral security, and the executing court rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction on October 29, 2013.

C. The Defendant asserted that the instant real estate was a lessee who paid the deposit amount of KRW 20 million during the above auction procedure, and filed a report on the right and demand for distribution. D.

On August 22, 2014, on the date of distribution, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”) by allocating KRW 20 million to the Defendant (a small lessee: 1st order), KRW 192,800, and KRW 134,241 to the Plaintiff (a mortgagee: 3rd order) in Gangnam-gu Seoul (a holder of distribution right).

E. Accordingly, on the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff stated an objection to the whole amount of dividends to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the argument of the most lessee

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the most lessee who entered into a false lease agreement on the instant real estate in order to receive the distribution of a small amount lease deposit under the Housing Lease Protection Act. Thus, the Defendant’s deeming the Defendant as a small lessee and distributing KRW 20 million should be deemed unlawful, and thus, the instant distribution schedule should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. The following circumstances revealed by the purport of evidence evidence Nos. 1 to 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 16, 20-22 and the entire pleadings are as follows: ① the Defendant owned the said real estate and resided in the said real estate, namely, (i) was in need of moving into the F and 1, and (ii) was in need of moving into the said real estate, and (iii) was in need of moving into the said real estate.