1. It was prepared by the same court on June 24, 2015 with respect to the voluntary auction case of the real estate B in Gyeyang-gu District Court Goyang-do.

1. The basic facts;

A. On June 28, 201, Nonparty C, who established the right to collateral security, obtained a loan of KRW 330,000,000 from the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff, and established the right to collateral security at KRW 396,00,000 with respect to an apartment apartment of KRW 115,1202 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), which is one’s own ownership, for the purpose of establishing the right to collateral security at KRW 196,00 with respect to the maximum debt amount.

B. On July 3, 2014, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement between July 18, 2014 and July 17, 2016 with respect to the instant real estate; the deposit amount was KRW 25,000,000; and the monthly rent was KRW 200,000,000.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Defendant completed a move-in report on the instant real estate on July 18, 2014, and obtained a fixed date in the said lease agreement.

C. As to the instant real estate in progress with the auction procedure, the Plaintiff filed an application for the commencement of voluntary auction to Goyang-dong Branch B, and on September 2, 2014, the auction procedure was conducted according to the said decision.

The defendant filed a demand for distribution and a report on the right as a lessee in the above procedure.

On June 24, 2015, the lower court prepared a distribution schedule to the Defendant, giving priority to dividends of KRW 22,00,000,000, and to distribute KRW 309,99,504 to the Plaintiff subordinate to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

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

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant entered into a lease agreement immediately before receipt of an auction on the real estate of this case, and that the lease agreement was not consistent with the market price, and the reason why the lease deposit was paid is unclear, the defendant alleged to be the most lessee, and that the distribution schedule of this case prepared to the effect that the defendant distributes the small amount of deposit to the defendant is unlawful, and thus, should be corrected.