1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on January 5, 2015 by the above court with respect to the case of compulsory auction by Busan District Court C real estate.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The following facts may be acknowledged by the Defendant’s confession, or by the purport of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the entire pleadings, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

1) On August 31, 2004, the Defendant: (a) on August 31, 2004, owned by the Plaintiff, a building of 43 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

1) The provisional seizure of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “provisional seizure of this case”) with a claim amounting to 18,000,000 won

2) A real estate auction was applied for by Busan District Court C for a compulsory auction.

After an auction of the instant real estate on January 5, 2015, a court of execution prepared an attached distribution schedule containing the content of distributing KRW 12,289,677 out of KRW 44,55,780, which is to be actually distributed to the Defendant on the date of distribution, and the Plaintiff who appeared on the date of distribution raised an objection against the whole amount of dividends to the Defendant.

3. However, the defendant did not know the plaintiff and did not have any claim against the plaintiff, and the network E, the defendant's third village, merely predicted the execution of the provisional seizure of this case on the real estate of this case under the defendant's name, and it cannot be known at all whether the network E has any claim against the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant did not actively state his intention to receive the above dividends.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the provisional seizure of this case cannot be recognized as the defendant's claims against the plaintiff, and thus, it is deemed null and void of the cause. Therefore, the above provisional seizure of this case should not be distributed to the defendant, but be distributed to the plaintiff who is the owner, not to the defendant.

However, since the execution court is unlawful by distributing dividends as stated in the attached Table, it shall correct the distribution schedule to delete the dividends distributed to the defendant in the above auction procedure and distribute them to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.