1. The Seoul Eastern District Court C and D (Dual) applications for compulsory auction are prepared by the above court on September 20, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for compulsory auction with the Seoul Eastern District Court C on September 7, 2016 with respect to F buildings, G and H (hereinafter “instant officetel”) owned by E based on the claim for the judgment amounting to Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Gahap548842, Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Da54842, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction with the Seoul East Eastern District Court C, and the I limited liability company, who is another creditor and mortgagee, filed an application for voluntary auction

B. Of the amount to be actually distributed on September 20, 2017, the auction court rendered a decision of recommending settlement to delete the above amount between the Plaintiff and the law firm J and distribute the additional dividends to the Plaintiff in this case, 190,240 won to the person holding the first priority of distribution (the pertinent tax) and the second lessee (the date of confirmation) to the Defendant (the applicant of resident registration, etc.), 80,240,000 won to the Defendant (the applicant of resident registration, etc.), 186,223,277, and 46,287,680 won to the law firm of the first priority collective security (the first collective security).

The distribution schedule was drawn up for each applicant creditor to distribute KRW 217,012,910 to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). C.

On September 20, 2017, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection to the total amount of the Defendant’s dividends, and thereafter filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution within one week thereafter.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings】

2. The party's assertion and judgment as to it

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s instant officetel used the instant officetel as a place of meeting and rest from around November 2013 to a construction business operator who constructed the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F building as a place of meeting and rest. The Defendant did not possess it. However, the Defendant is merely the most lessee who lost possession, which is one of the requisite to maintain preferential payment right under the Housing Lease Protection Act. As such, the amount of dividend against the Defendant should be deleted, and the amount of dividend of the Plaintiff should be increased accordingly.

(2) The defendant of this case.