1. The Plaintiff among the distribution schedule prepared on March 20, 2015 with respect to the Seoul Western District Court B real estate auction case.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 5, 2013, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 350 million to C, and KRW 443 billion, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 420 million and KRW 5759 million with respect to the D apartment owned by C on the same day (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

At the time, C and the defendant expressed that the defendant had been residing in the apartment of this case without any lease agreement among the plaintiff's assistant members.

B. On February 7, 2014, the Defendant, as the wife C, has the right to refund the lease deposit amount of KRW 40 million to C with respect to the instant apartment as to the instant apartment, and received the order of lease registration as Seoul Western District Court 2014Kao9 on February 7, 2014

2. 21. The completion of the entry registration.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Western District Court B for the instant apartment on April 25, 2014, and subsequently sold the instant apartment to E on February 6, 2015.

On March 20, 2015, the auction court distributed KRW 651,428,432 to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant KRW 40 million to the Defendant on the date of distribution. The Plaintiff raised an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant on the date of distribution.

3. 25. The instant lawsuit was filed.

[Evidence Evidence: Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, 6 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① there is no evidence that the Defendant paid KRW 180 million to C, and the relationship with the Defendant C, the lease contract concluded without a licensed real estate agent, and the establishment of the lease registration before two months prior to the commencement of the auction. ② The Defendant’s demand for distribution is against the opposite words and the good faith principle in that the Defendant’s demand for distribution was made free of charge even if the lessee was genuine, because it was notified that he was a free residence.

B. Defendant’s assertion (1) concluded a lease agreement with C on November 30, 2010 with a deposit of KRW 180,000,000,000, and paid the full amount of the deposit to the former lessee by returning the deposit in lieu of the former lessee, etc., but on December 2013, 140,000 out of the deposit.