A. On November 10, 2006, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with the term of 230,000,000 won and 24 months from November 24, 2006 with respect to F apartment 10, 410, Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and paid the lease deposit on November 24, 2006. The Defendant made the move-in report of the instant apartment on January 11, 2007, and obtained the fixed date in the lease contract.

B. G completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on September 12, 2007 with the instant apartment as collateral, including the maximum debt amount of KRW 200,000,000,000, and the neighboring establishment of a mortgage. On July 16, 2015, the Plaintiffs acquired 1/2 of the above collateral security claim, and completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on July 16, 2015.

C. When the apartment house of this case was sold to the defendant in the compulsory auction procedure that was commenced in lieu of the defendant's decision in lieu of conciliation against E, the court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as the "distribution schedule") under which the transferee of new bank, a new bank transferee of the company, in the first priority of 480,902,920 won, which is to be distributed by adding interest to the proceeds of sale on October 15, 2015 and deducting the cost of execution, as a mortgagee, 230,531,41 won as a mortgagee, and 230,000 won as a tenant with a fixed date holding the defendant as a creditor for the second priority, and 230,685,75 won as a mortgagee (1/2) to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff A distributes the amount of KRW 14,685,75,754 to the plaintiff as a mortgagee (hereinafter referred to as the "beneficiary of this case").

The Plaintiffs appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against the Defendant regarding KRW 106,282,398, out of the amount distributed to the Defendant, and thereafter filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution within a week thereafter.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 7 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion was that the defendant did not report legitimate rights as a preferential right holder and demand a distribution in the auction procedure regarding the apartment of this case.