1. A distribution schedule prepared on December 26, 2013 by the same court with respect to the case of compulsory auction of real estate D by the Seoul Northern District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 10, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against E for a loan claim and sentenced that “E shall pay to the Plaintiff 50 million won and 10% interest per annum from March 27, 2003 to the date of full payment” with the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2013Da8530, which became final and conclusive around that time.

B. The Plaintiff applied for a provisional attachment on the instant apartment owned by E, and completed the provisional attachment registration as KRW 97,222,221 on September 18, 2012. According to the judgment of the above paragraph (a), the Plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction on the instant apartment on the real estate and applied for a compulsory auction on the instant apartment on May 21, 2013, and the procedure for compulsory auction on the real estate was initiated as D by the Seoul Northern District Court.

C. In the above auction procedure on July 29, 2013, Defendant C applied for a report on each right and a demand for distribution with the lease deposit of KRW 24 million, and Defendant B applied for a report on each right and demand for distribution.

From 37,907,497 to 337,907,497 to be actually distributed on December 26, 2013, a date of distribution of the above auction procedure, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule to distribute the amount of KRW 17,404,259 to Defendant B as the first-class lessee of small amount, KRW 24 million to Defendant C, and KRW 17,404,259 to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff stated an objection against the dividend amount of the Defendants, and filed the instant lawsuit within one week thereafter.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Gap 5's evidence 1-3, Gap 6's evidence 1-3, Gap 8, 9's evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) is the most lessee in collusion with E to receive the lease deposit, and thus, the amount of dividend against the defendants should be deleted. In addition, each lease agreement entered into between E and the defendants should be revoked as a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor, and the amount of dividend against the defendants should be deleted due to its restitution.

(2) As to this, the Defendants shall: