1. A distribution schedule prepared on April 2, 2010 by the above court with respect to the compulsory auction of real estate C in Suwon District Court Sung-nam District Court.

1. In the auction procedure written in the order concerning multi-household houses (six households) on the D ground (hereinafter “instant housing”), a party who prepared the instant distribution schedule, filed a report on the right and demand a distribution with the court of execution by asserting that the Defendant is a small-sum lessee under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act as to subparagraph 101 of the instant housing and a housing lessee who has the fixed date and has the fixed date.

On April 2, 2010, a court of execution prepared and presented a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) to the Plaintiff, who is the applicant creditor and the person holding the provisional seizure right, as the applicant creditor, and the person holding the provisional seizure right, to distribute the amount of KRW 16,00,000 and KRW 8,795,320, respectively, to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff stated an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5-1, 5-2, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant forged a lease contract and receipt for the purpose of receiving a dividend in the auction procedure of this case, and that the plaintiff should correct the distribution schedule of this case since he did not conclude an actual lease contract or paid a security deposit as a lessee.

On August 20, 2008, the defendant claimed that he was the lessee who was the owner of the instant house 101 and was the lessee with the fixed date and was the lessee with the small-sum lessee and the fixed date of the instant house 101 on September 28, 2009, by paying the lease deposit of KRW 40 million and residing in E, who was the owner of the instant house 101.

B. As to whether the Defendant entered into a lease contract with respect to No. 101 of the instant housing, there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the lease deposit, No. 3 (multi-household lease contract), and No. 6 (Receipt). According to the appraiser F and G’s appraisal result, the name entry and seal of E in each of the instant documents are not based on the pen and seal of E.