1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on February 26, 2015 in the case of a voluntary auction of real estate B by the Incheon District Court, the Plaintiff.

1. Facts recognized;

A. On May 18, 201, the Plaintiff leased money to C, and was set up a collateral with respect to the instant real estate owned by C on May 18, 201, the maximum debt amount of which was KRW 169 million.

B. On June 2, 2014, at the request of the Plaintiff, the voluntary auction procedure for the instant real estate was initiated as Incheon District Court B.

C. On April 20, 2014, the Defendant asserted that, in the above auction procedure, the lease contract was concluded between C and C with a deposit of KRW 25 million (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and filed a report on the right as a lessee and a demand for distribution.

On February 26, 2015, the aforementioned court prepared a distribution schedule stating that KRW 22 million shall be distributed to the Defendant of the lessee of small claims, who was the mortgagee, and that KRW 64,378,736 shall be distributed to the Plaintiff, who was the mortgagee (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

E. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against the total amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on March 2, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4 and 9, each of the statements, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the defendant completed the resident registration which is a requisite for setting up against him under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

A. The plaintiff asserts that the distribution schedule of this case, which was distributed by recognizing the defendant as a small lessee, is unfair, since the defendant did not obtain opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act because he did not complete his resident registration and the defendant did not have the right to be paid preferentially as a small lessee.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim is groundless, since the defendant has an opposing power by accepting the report on the relocation of the place of residence.

B. According to the Act on the Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans, the fact that the Defendant, an overseas Korean, reported on September 10, 2013 the change of residence of the instant real estate to the residence of the Republic of Korea, is without dispute between the parties.