1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on August 20, 2014 by the High Government District Court with respect to the case of voluntary auction of real estate B, the same court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 19, 2012, the Plaintiff granted a loan of KRW 50 million to C, and completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “instant apartment”). On the same day, Hong Kong-based bank completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the instant apartment amount of KRW 65 million with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “instant apartment”). The debtor C and the maximum debt amount of KRW 21.6 million with respect to the instant apartment.

B. On November 18, 2013, upon the application of the Hong Kong Bank, a voluntary decision to commence the auction of the instant apartment on November 18, 2013 was rendered, and the entry registration was completed on November 19, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant auction procedure”) with respect to the auction procedure based on the said decision to commence the auction.

On the other hand, on February 10, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for a report on rights and a demand for distribution on the ground that he/she is a small lessee who leased the instant apartment from C with the deposit for lease deposit of KRW 25 million. On August 20, 2014, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that distributes the amount of KRW 22 million to the Defendant, who is a small lessee, in the first order of KRW 229,038,286, out of the amount to be actually distributed on the date of distribution implemented on August 20, 2014 (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection to the whole amount of distribution to the Defendant, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on August 26, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s primary claim is that the Defendant concluded a lease agreement to obtain unjust benefits by abusing the protection system of small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the Defendant is not a legitimate small lessee. Therefore, the Defendant’s dividends in preference to the Plaintiff as a small lessee in the instant distribution schedule is not a legitimate small lessee.