1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding the correction of the distribution schedule exceeding KRW 16,00,000 shall be dismissed.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) The non-party E, who has the executive title against the non-party D, is the owner of the non-party D, and the non-party E is the owner of the non-party D Nos. 1704-dong 501 (hereinafter referred to as the "the apartment of this case").

(1) On March 21, 2013, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory auction by official auction, and there was a decision to commence compulsory auction by official auction by official branch of the District Court. Meanwhile, Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Bank”) was a new bank.

(2) As to the apartment of this case, the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”) consisting of No. 163753, Dec. 28, 2006, No. 163753, Dec. 28, 2006, and the maximum debt amount of the apartment of this case, which is KRW 744,000,000, shall be deemed as the grounds for registration of establishment of a new mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”).

(2) After the completion of the instant mortgage, there was a voluntary decision to commence the auction of the instant apartment on the ground of the instant mortgage, and there was a decision to commence the auction on May 23, 2013 to the High Government District Court C. 2) Thereafter, the case for the compulsory auction of the instant apartment was overlapped with the case for the compulsory auction of the real estate B and the case for the auction of the real estate C to the High Government District Court for Goyang-gu District Court

(3) The Defendant, a limited liability company specialized in asset-backed securitization under the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, acquired the claim secured by the instant collateral-backed security from the bank after the commencement of the instant auction procedure. (4) In the instant auction procedure, the amount of KRW 436,07,326, which was actually distributed to the Defendant, who is the creditor under the instant collateral-backed security, as the creditor of the instant apartment, asserted as the lessee of the instant apartment, and the Plaintiff who demanded a distribution of the instant apartment was excluded from the distribution of dividends (hereinafter referred to as the “instant distribution schedule”).

5 The plaintiff is present on the date of the above distribution and raises an objection against 16,00,000 won out of the amount of distribution to the defendant.