1. As to the case of the replacement auction of real estate E with the Daegu District Court Seo-gu Branch of the District Court, the said court prepared on October 21, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff loaned funds to Korea Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Chemical”) and set up a collateral security worth of KRW 1,785,000,000 with respect to the real estate and machinery and appliances listed in the separate sheet owned by the said Company (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction with the Daegu District Court Seo- Branch E on the basis of the foregoing collateral security (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) and accordingly, the voluntary auction procedure regarding the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

C. The Defendants asserted that the lease deposit amount was KRW 10,000,000 each with respect to one column of a dormitory building among the instant real estate, among the real estate in this case, and that they concluded a lease contract with the following contents, and that they demanded a distribution of the lease deposit to the auction court.

Defendant A with the fixed date of the move-in report of the lease contract date or the fixed date of the move-in report of the lease contract date, and Defendant A who was no on February 3, 2015 on January 30, 2015, and no on February 6, 2015, Defendant C did not appear on January 16, 2015, and no on January 14, 2015, as Defendant DD’s None on January 16, 2015.

D. On October 21, 2015, the executing court, as the top priority lessee on the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure, distributed KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendants, respectively, on the date of distribution, and prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) with the content that the Plaintiff, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, distributes KRW 1,587,872,918 to the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the total amount of the dividend of the defendants.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the ground for appeal

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is that the Defendants are the most lessee who entered into a lease agreement on the instant building in order to receive a small-sum lease deposit. Even if the genuine lessee is, the dormitory of the instant building constitutes multi-family housing, and the correct number of houses in multi-family housing is identical.