1. A lease agreement entered into between the Defendant and B on July 30, 2014 with regard to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet.

1. On December 28, 2012, our bank loaned KRW 301,00,000 to B as a loan for the mortgage loan of the Korea Housing Finance Corporation. As a security, the bank completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 361,20,000 with respect to the attached real estate indicated in B’s real estate (hereinafter “the instant apartment”).

On January 31, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired the above claim against B from the above bank and completed registration with the Financial Services Commission, and met the requirements for setting up against B. On September 26, 2013, the Plaintiff lost the benefit of time upon enforcement of the seizure of the National Health Insurance Corporation on September 26, 2013, provisional seizure of the Gyeonggi Credit Guarantee Foundation on December 10, 2013, and seizure of Suwon City on December 27, 2013.

On the other hand, on July 30, 2014, B leased the instant apartment (as at the time, approximately KRW 315,00,000,000, market price) to the Defendant, which is the only property of the Defendant, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 20,00,000,00 and the lease term of KRW 30,00 from August 30, 2014 to 24 months (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). The Defendant made a move-in report on the instant apartment and received a fixed date in the lease contract only after June 14, 2016.

Afterwards, the Plaintiff filed an auction for voluntary auction on the instant apartment in order to proceed with the auction procedure. The instant apartment in order to distribute the amount of KRW 268,215,393 to be actually distributed on October 19, 2017 to the Defendant, who is a small lessee, in the first order, KRW 13,00,000, and KRW 1,372,82,820, and KRW 253,842,573 to the Plaintiff, who is a mortgagee, in the second order, was entitled to deliver the said apartment in the second order (hereinafter referred to as the “instant dividend table”).

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 13 evidence, fact-finding results on the case of strike, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff’s claim against B of the existence of the preserved claim can be the preserved claim in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act of this case.

B. Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act is established.