1. On March 19, 2015, a case concerning the application for a voluntary auction of the real estate B located in the Jeonju District Court and the Eup of the Eup.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 26, 2013, the Plaintiff completed a move-in report on February 26, 2013, with the former Northern-gun C 106 (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the New Dialz Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Dialz”).

B. On January 14, 2014, a voluntary auction procedure was initiated with respect to the instant building, etc., to the Jeonju District Court-Eup Branch B.

C. On February 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a report on the right and demand for distribution by asserting that the instant building was leased as KRW 20 million, monthly rent, and KRW 3.80,000,000,000, from New Dialz. On March 19, 2015, the auction court distributed dividends of KRW 571,751,189, which is the date of distribution, to the Defendant, who is the mortgagee, and drafted a distribution schedule excluded from the distribution (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

The plaintiff appeared on the date of the above distribution and raised an objection against the amount of KRW 14 million out of the amount of distribution to the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a genuine lessee who lawfully entered into a lease agreement on the instant building between D and the owner of the instant building on behalf of D, and thus, is entitled to receive a dividend of KRW 14 million in the order of priority. As such, the instant distribution schedule should be corrected to delete only 140 million out of the amount of dividends to the Defendant and distribute it to the Plaintiff.

B. The plaintiff alleged by the defendant was not only leased the building of this case from D, the person entitled to provisional registration of the building of this case, but also leased the building of this case from New Gangseoz, the owner of the building of this case. Thus, the plaintiff was not entitled to receive dividends in the distribution procedure of this case.

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 3, 7, and 10 and witness D’s testimony, D has completed the registration of ownership transfer claim as to the instant building on December 10, 2012.