1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on January 23, 2015 by the above court with respect to the F compulsory auction of real estate in Seoul Southern District Court.

1. Facts recognized;

A. On September 21, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis at KRW 90,000,00 with respect to the first floor and 64.3 square meters on the ground (including the land and the building; hereinafter “instant real estate”) of the first floor and the second 64.3 square meters on the land (including the land and the building) other than H in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, and completed the registration of the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis as of September 22, 2009.

B. After that, at the request of G, G’s creditor, the instant real estate was rendered by the Seoul Southern District Court F (hereinafter “instant auction”) on June 13, 2013.

C. In the instant auction procedure, the Defendants asserted as lessee, and filed a report on the right to deposit and demand a distribution. On January 23, 2015, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule stating that the Defendants recognized the Defendants as small lessee and distributed KRW 9,257,010, respectively, to the Plaintiff KRW 32,201,425 (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

Of the three floors of the lease contract date of the Defendant’s leased portion, one square meter (1); KRW 25 million (25 million) on December 3, 2012, 201; KRW 38 million on September 14, 2011; KRW 1 square meter (1st on July 19, 2012; KRW 50 million on July 19, 2012; KRW 103,5 million on July 19, 2012; KRW 103,5 million on March 25, 2012, KRW 200,000 on March 29, 2012.

The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against the total amount of the dividend of the Defendants, and filed the instant lawsuit on January 28, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 13 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s assertion is not a person who actually leased the instant real estate, but the lease agreement was made by notifying the Defendant and G in a false manner, and thus, cannot be protected as the lessee of a small amount.

B. Defendant B, D, and E’s assertion is a legitimate lessee who entered into a lease agreement with G and the instant real estate, and thus, the instant distribution schedule is the same.