The Daegu District Court C and D (Dual) of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on February 27, 2020 with respect to the compulsory auction of real estate.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 30, 2019, with respect to G apartment units in Daegu Dong-gu, E-owned, the decision to commence compulsory auction was made on January 30, 2019 (the decision to commence voluntary auction by HH association as a mortgagee).

B. In the above auction procedure on February 15, 2019, the Defendant reported a right as a lessee and demanded a distribution.

The contents of the right of lease are as follows: on April 10, 2017, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with E by setting the lease deposit of KRW 150,000,000 and the period of five hundred and fifty million; the Defendant completed the move-in report on April 11, 2017 and received the fixed date on November 2, 2018.

C. On February 27, 2020, the auction court distributed 229,20,000 won (the maximum debt amount of the collateral security) out of the amount to be actually distributed (271,145,021 won) to the HA association, the mortgagee, in the second priority order. The court distributed 24,828,231 won to the Defendant in the fourth priority order, and made a distribution schedule that did not distribute to the Plaintiff.

On the date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit.

At the time the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with E, the said apartment was established with the maximum debt amount of KRW 229,200,000, which is the maximum debt amount of the H association. Nevertheless, if the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the payment of KRW 150,000,000, it appears that it is difficult to be protected in light of

On April 11, 2017, the Defendant had already filed a move-in report on the said apartment on April 11, 2017, with E and two children, who were the owners of the said apartment, filed a move-in report on the said apartment, and did not file a move-in report to another place thereafter. In light of this, it is difficult to deem the Defendant only filed a move-in report

The defendant submitted a written reply to the submission of the statement of passbook, which is the data on the lease deposit, and was not present on the date of pleading, and there was no document of passbook.

[Evidence] Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 3.