1. On July 1, 2014, the distribution schedule prepared by the above court concerning the Busan District Court C real estate auction case.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 27, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 350,000 to E Co., Ltd. for business conversion, and Nonparty D, the representative director of E Co., Ltd., as the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), was jointly and severally guaranteed.

B. As E Co., Ltd and D did not repay loans, the Plaintiff applied for provisional seizure on the instant real estate on July 24, 2013 and completed provisional seizure registration upon receipt of the Busan District Court Decision 2013Kadan20364 on July 24, 2013.

C. As to the instant real estate, the Busan District Court C had conducted the auction procedure for real estate rent (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), and the Plaintiff reported the amount of claims 392,065,223 won ( principal KRW 350,000,000, interest KRW 42,065,223) as the person holding the provisional attachment, and the Defendants appears to have asserted as the lessee of a part of the instant real estate among the instant real estate.

The small lessee claimed that he has the right to make the top priority repayment, and made a demand for distribution (each of 20 million won). D.

In distributing dividends in KRW 486,972,303 on the date of distribution, which was in progress on July 1, 2014, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that distributes dividends in KRW 24,510,037 (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) to the Defendants in the first order, and in the sixth order, distributes dividends in KRW 2,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

E. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised the instant lawsuit on July 3, 2014, which was within one week thereafter, against the entire amount distributed by the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 3, 6 to 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Defendants conspired with Nonparty D without paying a lease deposit, and concluded a false lease agreement with each other, but did not have the right to refund the lease deposit, the Plaintiff deemed the genuine lessee and distributed the small amount of the deposit, respectively.