The distribution schedule prepared by the above court on September 10, 2019 with respect to the real estate rental auction case of the Seo-gu District Court Seo-gu District Court C.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 26, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) registered the establishment of a mortgage of KRW 180,000,000 with respect to the Daegu-gu E building F (hereinafter “instant real estate”); (b) on February 16, 2016, the instant real estate was established with the right to collateral security at KRW 275,60,000,000, prior to the establishment of the mortgage on February 16, 2016.

B. On April 17, 2017, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with D to KRW 50,00,000 for the instant real estate (a contract deposit of KRW 5,000,000 for KRW 5,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 5,000 on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 5,000 for the remainder of KRW 40,000 on June 15, 2017, and monthly rent of KRW 80,000 for the rent of KRW 80,000 for the period from July 3, 2017 to July 2, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and completed a move-in report on the same day and received a fixed date.

C. On August 29, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for the auction of real estate rent with the Seo-gu District Court Branch C on the basis of the foregoing right to collateral security, and this court rendered a decision to commence the auction of the instant real estate on September 21, 2018.

In addition, on September 10, 2019, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 7,546,303 out of the amount of claim 68,67,122 to the plaintiff as the third-class mortgagee, who is the third-class mortgagee on the date of distribution open on September 10, 2019.

On September 17, 2019, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the total amount of dividends of the Defendant on the date of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit on September 17, 2019, which was before seven days elapse from that date.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1 is that the instant lease agreement entered into with the Defendant with the Defendant in excess of debt constitutes invalid by means of false conspiracy or fraudulent act. Therefore, the instant lease agreement should be revoked by means of false conspiracy. Since the Defendant does not constitute a small lessee protected by the Housing Lease Protection Act, the instant distribution schedule is as indicated in the disposition.