1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on May 19, 2015 by the above court with respect to the Seoul Northern District Court B real estate auction case.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff loaned KRW 435,00,000 to C on September 27, 2012, and completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 565,60,000 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by C on the same day (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On February 11, 2013, the Defendant, who is his father, entered into a lease agreement with C with respect to one room among the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). From July 19, 2013 to July 18, 2015, the lease agreement was concluded regarding KRW 25,000,000, and the term of lease from July 19, 2013 to one room (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. On October 2, 2014, upon the Plaintiff’s application, the Seoul Northern District Court B rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction on the instant real estate.

On May 19, 2015, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 25,000,000 to the Defendant as the first-class lessee of small amount, and KRW 474,784,415 to the Plaintiff as the mortgagee (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

On May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant on the date of distribution.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, 17, and 20 evidences (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is the largest tenant with C's father who was the owner of the real estate of this case.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that a lease contract is concluded with C and a genuine lessee who has paid the deposit and resided therein.

B. Where the main purpose of the judgment-based lease agreement is not to use a house and make profits therefrom, and the actual purpose was to collect a claim prior to a mortgagee by being protected as a small lessee, such tenant cannot be protected as a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da23203, May 15, 2008). A, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 10.