1. It was prepared on March 19, 2015 by the said court with respect to the case of the voluntary auction of real estate B in Sung-nam District Court, Sungnam District Court.

In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant did not enter into a lease contract (the lease deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 400,000) which is the premise for the instant dividend with C.

Therefore, the part of the instant distribution schedule which deemed the Defendant as a small lessee and distributed KRW 14,00,000 to the Defendant is unreasonable, and the said money should be additionally distributed to the Plaintiff as a mortgagee.

① The Defendant’s mother is C.

② Defendant is still unable to submit a lease contract with C.

③ In relation to the payment of lease deposit, the Defendant asserts that “E, the father of the Defendant, lent KRW 20,000,000 to C in 2012, and the Defendant decided to convert the lease deposit into the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement without being refunded.”

However, there is no objective data that E lends KRW 20,000,000 to C.

④ Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts that the monthly rent of KRW 4.8 million was paid in cash around the date of the above lease agreement.

However, it is difficult to understand in light of the empirical rule that the defendant, who was unable to receive the existing loan, was paid first at once as the monthly rent of one year.

⑤ On March 12, 2013, the husband F claimed that the Defendant entered into a lease agreement, and filed an application for individual rehabilitation on April 16, 2013, which was after the month when the Defendant ceased to engage in the lease agreement.

It seems that the economic situation of the couple C was not good even around the lease date.

The plaintiff's primary claim is accepted as reasonable.