1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on September 30, 2019 by the said court with respect to the application for the auction of real estate C in Daegu District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 12, 2015, the Defendant leased part of the instant building from the owner E of the land and building in Daegu-gu North Korea (hereinafter “instant land and building”) to KRW 90,000,000. On August 20, 2015, the Defendant registered the instant building with the trade name “F” and obtained a fixed date on the same day lease agreement. The instant building was transferred on September 1, 2015.

B. On August 13, 2015, the Plaintiff, from G, purchased the instant building from E on March 7, 2017, received respectively the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the instant building, etc., with the maximum debt amount of KRW 150,000,000,000, the debtor H, the registration of establishment of a mortgage on July 7, 2017, the maximum debt amount of KRW 45,000,000, and the debtor H, respectively.

C. On August 22, 2018, the Daegu District Court C’s application for auction of the instant land and building was defective, and the auction court rendered a voluntary decision to commence auction on August 22, 2018, and the completion period to demand a distribution was decided on November 5, 2018.

On September 4, 2019, the date of distribution of the above auction case, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule with the content of distributing the amount of KRW 42,50,000 to the Defendant of the fixed date lessee, and KRW 78,017,518 to the Plaintiff, the mortgagee, in the sixth order, as well as the distribution of KRW 68,00. The Plaintiff appeared on the said date of distribution and raised an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on October 2, 2019, the period within seven days thereafter.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, Eul evidence 2 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant could not exercise opposing power and preferential right to payment because he could not maintain the business registration of the building of this case by the deadline for demanding distribution, and the defendant transferred his business registration to another building, but in fact, he continued to occupy the building of this case, and therefore, he is able to exercise opposing power and preferential right to payment.

(b).