1. A lease contract specified in paragraph 2 of the attached Table No. 1 between the defendant and C shall be concluded.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties or may be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 2-5, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 2-2-3, Eul evidence 25, Eul evidence 26, Eul evidence 29, Eul evidence 31-1, Eul evidence 32 and the whole arguments as a result of the order to submit financial information to the president of this court;

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C, around April 2, 2012, as Seoul Southern District Court 2012Kadan21830, claiming the down payment, etc., and C accepted and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim, the same year.

7.2.A protocol of recognition and recognition shall be drawn up.

B. According to the above recognition protocol, the Plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction on the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table C owned by C (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and accordingly, the compulsory auction commenced on March 7, 2014 as Incheon District Court Vice-Support D.

(hereinafter “Procedure for Compulsory Auction”). C.

On May 14, 2014, the Defendant applied for a report on the right to lease deposit amounting to KRW 90,000,000 and for a demand for distribution. On June 30, 2011, the Defendant and C prepared a lease deposit amount of KRW 90,00,000 and the lease term of KRW 24 months from June 30, 201, and submitted a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the fixed date of October 6, 201.

On July 10, 2014, the procedure for compulsory auction on the instant real estate was conducted on the first sale date of KRW 164,000,000 at the minimum sale price, but failed, and the same year.

8. 14. The second auction date was set in 114,110,000 won for the minimum auction price.

On September 1, 2014, the auction court notified the plaintiff that there is no remaining in the event that the plaintiff reimburses the plaintiff with the above minimum sale price under Article 102 (1) of the Civil Execution Act, which takes precedence over the plaintiff's claim as execution creditor, and then the same is applicable.