1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on June 26, 2019 by the said court with respect to the auction case of real estate C in Daejeon District Court.

1. The Plaintiff, on December 1, 2016, lent money to D, and received a right to collateral security with a maximum debt amount of KRW 100 million as to the Dong-gu Daejeon-gu E building F (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by D (hereinafter “instant building”).

At the time, the priority registration of the instant building was completed, which was based on the maximum debt amount of KRW 98,880,000, as the mortgagee G Association (hereinafter “instant G Association”).

The Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction of the instant building with the Daejeon District Court where D did not pay the principal and interest of the instant building, and this Court rendered a decision on the commencement of auction (C) on May 31, 2018 and proceeded with the voluntary auction procedure concerning the instant building.

In the instant voluntary auction case, the Defendant concluded a lease contract with D on May 28, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with a deposit of KRW 20 million as of May 28, 2018, and filed a report on rights and a demand for distribution in the instant voluntary auction case.

In distributing KRW 45,751,040, which was the date of distribution, from the proceeds of sale on June 26, 2019, the auction court of this case distributed KRW 45,751,040, which was the date of distribution, the Defendant deemed the top priority lessee, and distributed the total amount of KRW 22,270,174 in the first order. The second order distributes the total amount of claims to the G Association of this case, which was the first priority mortgagee, to the Plaintiff, who was the applicant creditor. The remaining amount of KRW 3,480,866 (the amount of claims 91,793,314) was distributed (hereinafter referred to as the “instant distribution schedule”), and the Plaintiff raised an objection against the Defendant on July 3, 2019.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination on the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s primary claim is based on a false lease contract, although the Defendant did not rent or actually reside in the instant building from D, the owner of the instant building.