1. The distribution schedule prepared by the above court on October 30, 2014 in the case of the application for auction of the real estate B in Gyeyang-gu District Court Goyang Branch B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 12, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with C, setting the deposit amount of KRW 22,00,000,000, and the term of lease from August 30, 2013 to August 29, 2015, with respect to the 1st floor Non-02 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

The plaintiff completed the move-in report and the fixed date on August 21, 2013.

B. On the other hand, C, while obtaining a loan from the Defendant, completed the registration of creation of a right to collateral security with a maximum debt amount of KRW 71,500,000 on July 23, 2010. As C, upon delinquency in the payment of the said loan, C, upon filing an application for commencement of a voluntary auction with the High Court of the District Court, filed an application for the commencement of the auction with the High Court of the Republic of Korea on March 5, 2014.

C. On October 30, 2014, the lower court prepared a distribution schedule that excluded the Plaintiff from the distribution of dividends and distributes KRW 52,624,051, the full amount of the dividends to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

Accordingly, the plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against KRW 20,000 out of the amount of dividend distributed by the defendant.

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

2. The plaintiff asserts that the distribution schedule of this case, excluding the plaintiff's dividends, is unfair, even though he is a genuine tenant who is protected by the Housing Lease Protection Act with respect to the real estate of this case, the plaintiff should be apportioned KRW 20,000,000, which is a small deposit under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the lease contract of this case was concluded by the non-party planning real estate that is the lessor, and the plaintiff is the most lessee.

3. The Plaintiff is a lessee who entered into a lease agreement with C and paid a security deposit, as determined by the foregoing facts.