1. It was drafted on August 28, 2014 in the Incheon District Court Support C, D (Dual), E (Dual), and F (Dual) real estate auction cases.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s share of co-ownership (G G 1480m2, hereinafter “instant site”) is located in a non-registered residential building (hereinafter “instant housing”) on the ground.

B. On February 6, 2013, with respect to the instant site, several auction procedures, including the commencement of the auction procedure on February 6, 2013 (hereinafter “instant auction procedures”) were conducted as indicated in the text.

C. In the instant auction procedure, the Defendant reported a right and demanded a distribution to the effect that “the lessee of the instant housing has a claim of KRW 15 million as a deposit.”

On August 28, 2014, the auction court recognized the defendant as a tenant of small amount under the Housing Lease Protection Act and prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 15 million to the defendant.

F. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection to the total amount of dividends against the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 6 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant resided in the instant house and did not pay rent, electricity fee, etc. for the period from October 2010 to August 2014, 2014, and did not pay the rent for the period from October 2010 to August 2014, not only amount to KRW 9.2 million, but also occupied and used the instant house without delivering it. Thus, it is unreasonable to distribute the Defendant’s total amount of the rent deposit to KRW 15 million.

B. The initial lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated on November 201, 2010, and the Defendant moved to another place, and thus the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the rent after November 201, 2010. In the event the Defendant re-transfered to the instant house and resides therein on July 2012, the Plaintiff was also exempted from the obligation to pay the rent, and thus, there is no obligation to pay the rent.

There is no fact of delinquency in public charges, such as electricity charges claimed by the Plaintiff, and in particular, before re-transfer on July 2012, there is no reason for the Defendant to pay the public charges.

3. Determination.