1. The Daegu District Court prepared on March 26, 2014 with respect to the auction case of real estate B located in the Daegu District Court Branch B.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 18, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction of the instant apartment based on the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 52,00,000, and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the instant apartment as the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 243,100,000, under Article 97487, which was received on November 9, 2012, with respect to the instant apartment, North-gu D apartment Nos. 106, 1901 (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the instant apartment as the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 243,10,000,000, with respect to the instant apartment. There was a voluntary decision to commence auction as a branch court of the

B. On March 26, 2014, the Daegu District Court: (a) asserted that the instant apartment complex was a lessee with respect to the instant apartment complex; and (b) prepared a distribution schedule that distributes KRW 14,00,000 to the Defendant, who made a demand for distribution prior to the final distribution date; (c) KRW 389,980 to the port north-si, the delivery authority; and (d) KRW 238,03,338 to the Plaintiff out of the total claim amount KRW 289,525,217 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

C. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against the full amount of KRW 14,00,000 against the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution on April 1, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant lease agreement was concluded by the Defendant in a false manner to receive a small amount of lease deposit, and accordingly, the instant distribution schedule should be corrected to delete the total amount of dividend to the Defendant and distribute it to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant asserted to the purport that the instant distribution schedule is justifiable, inasmuch as the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement and paid the lease deposit, and actually resided in the instant apartment, as it is the genuine lessee who actually resided in and resided in the instant apartment.

B. Each description of evidence Nos. 3 and 4 is written.