1. It was drawn up by the above court on August 25, 2014 with respect to voluntary auction cases of real estate B in Gyeyang-gu District Court Goyang-dong District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 12, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C, setting a deposit amount of KRW 28,000,000, and the term of lease from July 26, 2013 to July 25, 2015, with respect to 1102-dong 102 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On July 19, 2013, the Plaintiff completed a move-in report on the said real estate and received a fixed date.

B. On the other hand, on June 30, 2010, the instant real estate was established with the establishment of the right to collateral security at KRW 396,000,00 for the Federation of Agricultural Cooperatives, Nonghyup Bank, Inc. (the Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd.), the maximum debt amount. However, the said right to collateral security (the said right to collateral security) filed an application for commencement of voluntary auction with the Ji Government District Court Choyang-Support B, which

In the above auction procedure, the Plaintiff filed a report on the right as a lessee and filed an application for demand for distribution.

C. In the above auction procedure to prepare a distribution schedule, on August 25, 2014, the said court prepared a distribution schedule to the effect that the Plaintiff excluded the Plaintiff from the distribution of dividends, and that the remainder of KRW 332,381,757, other than the pertinent tax, is distributed to the Defendant who acquired the right of Nonghyup Bank to C.

Accordingly, the plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against KRW 20,000 out of the amount of dividend distributed by the defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the distribution schedule of this case, excluding the plaintiff's dividends, should be unfair, and the amount equivalent to the small amount of the defendant's dividend should be distributed to the plaintiff, even though the plaintiff was a genuine tenant who entered into a lease agreement with C with regard to the real estate in this case and paid the lease deposit.

As to this, the defendant is entitled to receive a preferential repayment of the small amount of lease deposit by abusing the Housing Lease Protection Act.