1. The Cheongju District Court prepared on September 23, 2015 with respect to the Cheongju District Court D D's auction of real estate.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 22, 2012, the Plaintiff is a mortgagee who completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 300,000,000 with respect to each land and building on the ground located in F, G, and H as owned by E (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”).

B. On January 13, 2014, according to the voluntary auction application of the Michuhol Credit Cooperatives, which was the senior mortgagee of each of the instant real estate, the decision to voluntarily commence the auction was rendered on January 13, 2014.

(C) The auction procedure under this paragraph is referred to as “instant auction procedure.”

In the auction procedure of this case, the Defendants asserted that they were small tenants on the part of the ground buildings (hereinafter “instant building”) among each of the instant real estate, and filed a report on rights and demand for distribution with the Cheongju District Court on September 23, 2015, the Cheongju District Court: (a) distributed to Defendant B the total amount of KRW 12,000,000 to the small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act; (b) distributed KRW 19,500,000 to the small lessee under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act; and (c) distributed to Defendant C the total amount of KRW 12,00,000 to the small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act; and (d) drafted a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the Defendants on the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on September 30, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5 through 7 (including each number for additional evidence), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendants did not have actually resided in the building of this case, and are the most lessee who did not have paid the deposit to the lessor E, and submitted by the Defendants.