1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Basic facts

A. On April 10, 2007, the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Kadan2357, the Plaintiff was issued a provisional seizure order of real estate amounting to KRW 216,708,163 with respect to the claim amounting to 3 creative multi-family houses (six households) with respect to the unit houses (six households) on the ground D in Hanam-si, Hanam-si, Seoul Central District Court 2007Kadan2357, and the provisional attachment registration was completed on the same day.

B. On July 20, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred the above provisional attachment as the provisional attachment, and received a compulsory decision to commence compulsory auction on the instant housing from Suwon District Court Sungnam Branch C (hereinafter “instant auction”), and on the same day, registered the compulsory decision to commence auction on the same day.

C. After completing the moving-in report of the instant house No. 101 on September 28, 2009, the Defendant filed an application for a report on rights and a demand for distribution with the court of execution by asserting that he/she is the lessee of a small amount under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and the lessee with the fixed date under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act

On April 2, 2010, a court of execution prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”) that distributes to the Plaintiff KRW 198,821,255, the date of distribution, and the Defendant KRW 16,00,000 (small-sum lessee) and KRW 8,795,320 (subsum lessee having a fixed date), and the Plaintiff stated an objection against the entire amount of dividends.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 3, 5 through 7 (including virtual numbers) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties asserts that since the defendant did not enter into an actual lease contract or pay the deposit as a lessee, the correction of the distribution schedule of this case should be made as stated in the purport of the claim.

On July 12, 2008, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with E, the owner of the instant house 101, setting the lease deposit of KRW 40 million, and the lease contract was concluded on the same day and the remainder of KRW 37 million on August 20, 2008, respectively, and paid the remainder of KRW 101.