1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on April 22, 2019, this Court against the Defendant in the instant case of DD real estate auction.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 19, 2016, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the term of KRW 20 million, KRW 300,000,000,000, monthly rent, and KRW 24 months with respect to Stel H (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by E and F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On April 22, 2019, the instant real estate, etc. was commenced as D by this Court. On April 22, 2019, this Court drafted a distribution schedule that distributes each of the dividends of KRW 14,00,000 to the Defendant, who is the mortgagee, and KRW 156,966,207 to the Plaintiff, the mortgagee, as the top priority lessee.

(hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). C.

The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against the amount of distribution to the Plaintiff, and filed the instant lawsuit on April 26, 2019.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, as the Defendant concluded the instant lease agreement with E, who is not the owner of the instant real estate, the Defendant did not have the right to preferentially distribute the deposit amount of KRW 14,00,000,00 as the top priority lessee, and the Defendant asserted that he had the right to receive the said payment from the Defendant as the actual owner of the instant real estate or the right to legally delegate the right to lease the said right.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the defendant filed a fraudulent complaint of Eul with the intent of the whole pleadings, but received disposition that Eul was not suspected of having been subject to suspicion (Evidence of Evidence).

However, under the following circumstances, the representative director of the non-party company, who is the owner of the real estate of this case, did not delegate to E the authority to conclude the lease contract of this case, and did not receive the deposit or rent of this case.