1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on September 5, 2014 by the above court with respect to the case of compulsory auction of real estate C by the Speaker District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 19, 2013, the New Card Co., Ltd. filed an application for compulsory auction with the Government District Court C on April 19, 2013 for a compulsory auction on one-half of the share (E share) in the area of 655 square meters, which was 655 square meters prior to Gyeonggi-gun D, and rendered a judgment to commence compulsory auction on April 22, 20

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). B.

On July 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) filed a demand for distribution based on the claim for return of the lease deposit, alleging that, at the instant auction procedure on October 18, 2006, the building (hereinafter “instant building”) other than KRW 655 square meters was leased from E to KRW 20 million, as a small lessee who leased the building (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. The Jung-gu District Court, on September 5, 2014, prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) with the content that distributes the amount of KRW 12 million to the Defendant, who is a lessee of small claims, in the first order among the amount to be actually distributed on September 5, 2014, and KRW 61,221,876, to the Plaintiff, who is a mortgagee of small claims, in the third order.

The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the whole amount distributed by the Defendant, and thereafter filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on September 5, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (i) The Plaintiff, who is the most lessee, received the distribution as a genuine small-sum lessee, and accordingly, sought the correction of the distribution schedule.

Luxembourg The Defendant leased and resided the building of this case from F with the lease deposit of KRW 4.5 million, and on October 18, 2006, leased the building of this case from E to the lease deposit of KRW 20 million (the amount increased by KRW 15.5 million at E’s request). The Defendant asserts that the building of this case is a genuine lessee.

B. We examine the following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant’s children who participated in the investigation into the status of real estate at the auction procedure of this case as the owner of the building of this case, by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned facts, the evidence mentioned above, and evidence Nos. 2 and 5-3.