1. Defendant . Of the distribution schedule prepared by this Court on August 7, 2014 in the case of filing a motion for auction of real estate status D with the District Court.

Basic Facts

On June 22, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the E, 290 square meters, F, 106 square meters, and each above-ground building (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with respect to the building located on the Namyang-si, Nam-si, the Namyang District Court, the Namyang District Court, the Namyang District Court, the receipt of June 22, 2012, No. 65988, the maximum debt amount of KRW 1.5 billion, the Plaintiff, and the debtor G.

On May 22, 2013, the Plaintiff filed for an auction on the discretionary real estate based on the foregoing collateral security (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) and commenced an auction procedure regarding the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

The court of auction, on August 7, 2014, prepared a distribution schedule with the following contents, by distributing the amount to be actually distributed from the date of distribution of the auction procedure in this case to KRW 1,194,402,264 to Defendant A2, Defendant B 3, 100% of the fixed lessee A2, Defendant B 3, 100% of the fixed lessee A 1,000,000 100% of Defendant C4 fixed lessee C 70,000,000 to Defendant C4, Defendant C4, 5 Plaintiff C4, 5, 971,129,904, 904, 64.78% of the fixed obligee D 5, 2014.

The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and stated an objection to the whole amount of the Defendants’ dividends, and filed the instant lawsuit on August 13, 2013, within seven days thereafter.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-1 through 3, and Gap evidence No. 3, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings as to the purport of the plaintiff's whole, and defendant Gap and Eul constitute the most lessee of the real estate of this case. The defendant C leased part of the real estate of this case as monthly rent and operated the beauty room of this case. Since the defendants received dividends in the auction procedure of this case even though they did not have the right to refund the lease deposit, the amount of dividends against the defendants in the distribution schedule of this case should be revised as zero, and the amount of dividends against the plaintiff from 971,129,904 to 1,191,129,904 to the plaintiff should be

Judgment

A creditor who has filed an objection to a distribution, claiming that the other party's claim in a lawsuit of demurrer to a distribution has been disguised, shall do so.