1. A distribution schedule prepared on March 8, 2018 by the said court with respect to the case of the voluntary auction of real estate C with the Suwon District Court Sung-nam District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 29, 2016, D applied for a voluntary auction on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet as a mortgagee of the right to collateral security on each of the real estate owned by E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), and voluntarily decided to commence auction with Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch C.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant auction”) B.

On November 16, 2016, the Defendant submitted a report on rights and an application for demand for distribution as a lessee to an auction court. On April 20, 2014, the Defendant attached the lease contract between E and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). The key contents of the instant lease contract are as follows, and the instant lease contract contains the fixed date date on December 8, 2015.

Lease contract

1. Indication of real estate: The Financial in Gyeonggi-do, three rooms with two floors, and dormitories;

2. Deposit for lease: 30,000,000 won.

3. Term of lease: Matters specially prescribed from April 20, 2014 to April 20, 2016. (1) This contract is directly concluded between a lessor and a lessee upon mutual agreement.

On April 20, 2014, lessor Co., Ltd.: E G lessee: H gas station B

C. On March 8, 2018, an auction court prepared a distribution schedule of KRW 2,107,677,087, which is to be actually distributed on the date of distribution. The Defendant, as a lessee, received KRW 19 million in the first order, and the Plaintiff, as a successor to the right to collateral security, received KRW 1,92,304,737 in the third order.

The plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the amount of distribution of the defendant in the distribution schedule of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is merely a false preparation of the lease contract of this case in collusion with E, and it cannot be viewed as a genuine tenant. The lease contract of this case is invalid as a false declaration of agreement, and the lease contract between E and the defendant is concluded by the rehabilitation court.