1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on September 18, 2014 by the same court with respect to the auction cases involving B real estate.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 15, 2013, the Plaintiff registered the establishment of a mortgage over KRW 3 billion in the name of the Plaintiff with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On March 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction based on the right to collateral security with respect to the instant building with the Daejeon District Court B, and received a decision to commence voluntary auction from the Daejeon District Court.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). C.

In the auction procedure of this case on June 7, 2013, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant leased the second and third floors among the instant building from C on December 24, 2010 to KRW 70,00,000 (the second and third floors among the instant building on December 24, 2010), and filed a report on the right and demand for distribution to the auction court.

On September 18, 2014, the Daejeon District Court, which is the cause of auction law, prepared a distribution schedule to distribute KRW 70,000,00 to the Defendant and the Plaintiff KRW 2,360,431,525 to the Plaintiff, respectively, on the grounds that the lessee is a tenant on the date of the establishment of a commercial building. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution on the same date, and raised an objection to the whole amount of dividends of the Defendant. On September 22, 2014, the Daejeon District Court filed a lawsuit of demurrer to the distribution against the Defendant

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is the most lessee who obtained the fixed date based on the false lease agreement in order to receive dividends from the auction procedure of this case.

As to this, the defendant, from January 201, operated a business with the trade name "D" in the building of this case from around January 201, and the defendant obtained a fixed date before the date of establishing the plaintiff's mortgage while he leased and used the building of this case, he asserts that the amount distributed to the defendant is justifiable.

3. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection against distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on the market is also the principle of distribution of burden of proof in general civil procedure.