1. The distribution schedule prepared on June 23, 2017 by the Seoul Northern District Court B concerning the auction of real estate.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 23, 2008, the National Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “National Bank”) completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on D Apartment 102 Dong 601, Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seoul (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the maximum debt amount of 35,000 U.S. dollars and the debtor, Jyang-do Lti, Co., Ltd.

B. The National Bank applied for the auction of the instant apartment to Seoul Northern District Court B on April 8, 2016, upon the registration of the establishment of the foregoing neighboring mortgage, and received a decision to commence the auction from the above court on April 8, 2016.

(C) Around January 10, 2017, the Plaintiff acquired the secured debt of the right to collateral security from the National Bank (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

C. In the instant auction procedure on May 9, 2016, the Defendant filed a report on the right and demand for distribution by asserting that he/she is a small lessee with respect to one square column of the instant apartment complex. On June 23, 2017, the Seoul Northern District Court drafted a distribution schedule with the purport that “In the first order to the Defendant, KRW 20,000 as a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act, the Defendant shall be the first order, and KRW 836,650 as a creditor of the pertinent tax, and KRW 36,256,755 as a collateral security (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”) in the second order to the Plaintiff.

On the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the whole amount of dividends to the Defendant, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on June 29, 2016, within one week from that date.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, Eul evidence No. 6 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is not the tenant who actually paid the lease deposit for the purpose of residing, but the tenant who entered into a false lease contract for the purpose of receiving the distribution, and thus, the distribution schedule of this case.