1. It was drawn up by this Court on October 30, 2014 in this Court’s case of the compulsory auction and C(Dual) real estate auction.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings:

Attached Form

On October 15, 2008, the real estate indicated in the list (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) was originally owned by the Defendant, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of sale (the transaction price of KRW 150 million) with D on October 15, 2008. On August 26, 2009, the Plaintiff leased D the apartment of this case amounting to KRW 96 million to D on August 26, 2009, and completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage amounting to KRW 124.8 million with respect to the maximum debt amount.

B. Since then, the establishment registration of the instant apartment was completed on September 7, 2010, the maximum debt amount of KRW 3,000, the debtor D, and the mortgagee E. On April 8, 2011, the provisional attachment registration was completed with the creditor Gyeonggi Credit Guarantee Foundation, the claimed amount of KRW 4,780,000, and the provisional attachment registration was completed on January 4, 2012 with the right holder as the National Health Insurance Corporation.

C. On March 2014, AWWn Loan Co., Ltd. applied for a compulsory auction of real estate to this court B and started the auction procedure on the 25th of the same month. On May 2014, the Plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction of real estate rent to this court C, and the auction procedure was commenced on the 23th of the same month, and the apartment of this case was sold to F on September 23, 2014.

On October 30, 2014, the above execution court prepared a distribution schedule with the content of distributing KRW 27,925,625 to the Defendant, who is a lessee of small claims, in the first order among the amount to be distributed actually on the date of distribution 88,239,555, and in the third order, to the Plaintiff, who is a mortgagee, as the mortgagee, in the third order.

E. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit.

2. The original defendant's assertion

A. Since the Defendant is the most lessee or D, it is not sufficient to pay the deposit for lease, the Defendant’s dividends to the Defendant out of the instant distribution schedule is unlawful.

(b) against this;