1. A table of distribution prepared on March 4, 2015 by this Court concerning the auction cases of real estate B in the Daegu District Court-dong Branch B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 3, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 257 million to C, and completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over KRW 334,100,000,000 as the maximum debt amount with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by C on the same day to secure the payment of loan claims.

B. After that, upon C’s delay in the repayment of loans to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction of the instant apartment, and this court rendered a voluntary decision to commence auction to the instant apartment on July 25, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). C.

In the instant auction procedure on May 7, 2014, the Defendant: (a) concluded a lease contract for the instant apartment and paid the deposit money; and (b) filed a demand for distribution of the said lease deposit by asserting that it is a small lessee who completed the move-in report on July 25, 2014.

On March 4, 2015, this Court made a distribution schedule with the content that distributes KRW 15 million to the Defendant, a lessee of small claims, at the first priority on the date of distribution, and that distributes KRW 240,738,194 to the Plaintiff, a mortgagee of small claims (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

E. Accordingly, on the aforementioned date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the entire amount of distribution to the Defendant, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on March 10, 2015, within one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff 1’s assertion is the most lessee who entered into a false rental agreement on the instant housing in order to receive a small-sum lease deposit under the Housing Lease Protection Act, or the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements prescribed in Articles 8(1) and 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act because it was not actually resided after being handed over the instant apartment.

Therefore, the distribution of dividends to the defendant is illegal, and thus, this case.