1. Of the main claim in this case, the part demanding the correction of the amount of KRW 6,000,000 shall be dismissed.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On September 17, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C, the owner of the said real estate, with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 20,000,000, and the term of lease from October 7, 2013 to October 6, 2015 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On October 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report on the resident registration of the said real estate on the same day, and obtained a fixed date in the said contract on the same day.

B. On November 8, 2010, the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation granted a loan to C with respect to the Defendant’s claim and auction procedure, and on the same day, set the right to collateral security at KRW 234,00,000 with respect to the instant real estate.

Since then, the above union applied for the commencement of auction on the real estate in this case to the Goyang-dong District Court B, and the auction procedure was conducted on June 3, 2014.

Since then, the defendant acquired the claim of the above union by transfer of assets according to the assets transfer agreement.

Meanwhile, in the above procedure, the Plaintiff filed a report on the right as a lessee and filed an application for demand for distribution.

C. During the preparation of a distribution schedule, the above court prepared a distribution schedule to the effect that the remaining 176,760,633 won, excluding the pertinent tax, is distributed to the Defendant, except for the Plaintiff’s dividends, and the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against KRW 14,00,000 among the Defendant’s dividends.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 11, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a genuine lessee entitled to protection under the Housing Lease Protection Act that concludes a lease agreement on the instant real estate and has paid the lease deposit, and thus, the instant distribution schedule, except for the Plaintiff’s dividends, is unlawful, asserted, and sought correction of the distribution schedule.

2.3.