1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on January 27, 2015 with respect to the voluntary auction of B real estate in this Court, the Defendant.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be found in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 7, by integrating the purport of the whole pleadings:

On November 9, 2012, the Plaintiff leased KRW 127 million to C on November 16, 2015, with the due date set at 20% per annum of November 16, 2015, interest rate of KRW 2.8% per annum, and delay compensation rate of KRW 20% per annum. On the same day, the Plaintiff obtained from C the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant housing”) owned by C as the obligor C (hereinafter “instant housing”).

B. Since September 2013, the Plaintiff failed to pay interest on the loan, and around January 2014, the Plaintiff applied for a voluntary auction of the real estate based on the foregoing collateral security on the instant housing to this court B, and started the auction procedure on the 10th of the same month. The instant housing was sold to D on December 6, 2012, when the auction procedure was in progress.

C. On April 11, 2014, the Defendant filed a report on the right and demand for distribution with the content that the instant housing was leased and possessed as KRW 24 million with C on February 8, 2013 at the said auction procedure, by setting the lease deposit amount as KRW 24 million.

On January 27, 2015, the above court of execution prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 22 million to the defendant, who is the lessee of small amount, in the first order of 85,525,456 among the amount to be actually distributed on the date of distribution open on January 27, 2015, to the defendant, who is the lessee of small amount, in the second order, in the Incheon Nam-gu, which is the holder of the right to deliver, and in the third order, to the plaintiff, the applicant creditor, in the third order

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

2. The plaintiff's assertion is the most lessee, and thus, the dividend of this case against the defendant is unlawful, and it is concluded a lease agreement between the defendant and the small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act with respect to the housing of this case as the defendant exceeds C's obligation.