1. It was prepared on August 17, 2015 by the above court with respect to the compulsory auction case of the real estate B in Gyeyang-gu District Court Goyang-gu District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 29, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff (Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap41337) to return unjust enrichment, etc., and on May 23, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to the first instance judgment by service, stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated by the rate of 1,926,552,960 won per annum from March 28, 2014 to the date of full payment” and that “the Plaintiff shall pay the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum to the Defendant.”

B. On August 22, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the said judgment of the first instance court (Seoul High Court 2014Na40857). On October 15, 2015, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the appellate judgment that “the revocation of the judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Defendant’s claim is dismissed.” While the Defendant filed an appeal against the said judgment, the lower judgment was sentenced on February 25, 2016 (Supreme Court Decision 2015Da69884) and the said appellate judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

C. However, on July 21, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction of real estate on the Plaintiff’s real estate owned by the Defendant, and received a dividend of KRW 150,000,000 on August 17, 2015, the date of distribution of the said real estate compulsory auction case.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and stated the Defendant’s distribution amounting to KRW 150,00,000, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on August 19, 2015.

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

2. According to the above facts finding, it is reasonable to view that there is no claim against the plaintiff, such as return of unjust enrichment against the plaintiff, etc., so the distribution schedule prepared to distribute KRW 150,000 to the defendant on the premise that the defendant's claim for return of unjust enrichment against the plaintiff exists in the above real estate compulsory auction case is erroneous, and the above KRW 150,000,000 should be distributed to the debtor and the owner who stated an objection on the date of distribution.

Therefore, it is necessary to carry out a compulsory auction B's real estate in the UK District Court.