1. On July 30, 2015, the above court with respect to the case of voluntary auction application for the real estate B in Gyeyang-gu District Court Goyang-gu District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement with C on April 28, 201, and loaned KRW 360,000,000,000. On April 29, 2011, the Plaintiff created a right to collateral security at KRW 432,00,000 with respect to the D Apartment Nos. 114, 1103 (hereinafter “instant real property”).

B. The Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C to the effect that one of the instant real estate is leased by setting the deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000, and the contract period from August 18, 2014 to August 18, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and on August 20, 2014, the Defendant filed a move-in report for the resident registration of the instant real estate and received a fixed date in the said contract.

C. On November 13, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for the auction of the real estate rent B with the Goyang-gu District Court Goyang-dong District Court for the auction on the said real estate, and the auction was conducted upon its decision.

The defendant filed a report on the right as a lessee in the above procedure and filed an application for demand for distribution.

On July 30, 2014, the above court set up a distribution schedule to the Defendant to the effect that 20,000,000 won shall be preferentially distributed to the Defendant, and that the remaining 319,871,245 won, other than the pertinent tax, shall be distributed to the Defendant.

Accordingly, the plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the amount of distribution of the defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff is the most lessee that only made the appearance of the tenant such as the tenant by abusing the Housing Lease Protection Act that the defendant recognized the right to preferential payment of small amount to the tenant, the defendant cannot be viewed as a legitimate tenant, and the distribution schedule of this case prepared to the purport that the defendant distributes the small amount of deposit to the defendant is unfair, and the above dividends should

As to this, the defendant is the true lessee who entered into a lease contract with C and paid all the lease deposit.