1. On November 8, 2018, the above court with respect to the Suwon District Court's Sungnam Branch C, D, E, F (Dual) compulsory auction case for real estate.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant asserted that, around July 20, 2015, he/she was a lessee who has the preferential right of payment under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, from July 20, 2015 to KRW 200 million, in the auction procedure on the order on H building I (246.8 square meters), Jho (152.97 square meters), and K (54 square meters), and the Defendant filed a report on his/her right and demand for distribution on September 20, 2017.

B. On October 24, 2017, L filed a report on the right and demand for distribution with respect to the instant building from February 26, 2016 to the executing court, asserting that from around February 26, 2016, L was a small lessee who leased the instant building in KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 700,000,000.

C. On November 8, 2018, the court of execution distributed KRW 10 million to L, the lessee of a small amount, the date of distribution, and distributed KRW 325,336,363 to the Plaintiff, the execution creditor, as the execution creditor, in the fifth order, but the same order was indicated in the distribution schedule, due to the difference between the relationship of rights in I, J, and K.

When preparing and submitting a distribution schedule that distributes 35,611,78 won to the defendant, who is the lessee with preferential right to payment, the plaintiff raised an objection against the total amount of the distribution of the defendant on the date of the above distribution, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of this case.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1, 3, and Gap evidence 9, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant prepared a lease contract for the purpose of receiving dividends in the auction procedure of this case, and it cannot be viewed as a legitimate tenant since it did not enter into an actual lease contract or there was no business operation in the building of this case, and even if not, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate tenant because it did not attach drawings at the time of business registration as a part of the building of this case, the plaintiff sought revision of the distribution schedule of this case. 2)