1. A distribution table prepared on July 20, 2016 by this Court concerning the auction cases of real estate C with the Jeonju District Court of the United States.

The judgment on Defendant B is as shown in the attached Form “the cause of the claim”.

Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of the Acts (non-party D), based on the facts of judgment as to Defendant A, was owned by the non-party D, in Gunsan-si, E, 127.2 square meters and its ground reinforced concrete tanks and the two-story neighborhood living facilities and houses (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and the building in this case.

D, upon obtaining loans from the Industrial Bank of Korea, the Bank set up the maximum debt amount of KRW 12,00,000 and the right to collateral security worth of KRW 24,00,000 with respect to the instant real estate, respectively.

The Plaintiff acquired the Bank’s claim against D and transferred the status as a mortgagee of each right to collateral security in the name of the Bank established on the instant real estate.

On September 30, 2015, the instant real estate was voluntarily decided to commence auction to the Military Accounting Support C by the Jeonju District Court on September 30, 2015.

In the above auction procedure, Defendant A filed a report on KRW 13,00,000 on the claim for the return of lease deposit, claiming that he himself is a lessee who is residing on a lease of part of the first floor of the building of this case, and the Plaintiff reported that D has the claim of KRW 76,00,000.

On July 20, 2016, the above auction court distributed 12 million won, which is recognized as the top priority repayment right under the Housing Lease Protection Act, to Defendant A, and distributed 52,630,667 won to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff appeared on the date of the above distribution and raised an objection against the total amount of dividends against the defendant A.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserts that the amount of dividends against the defendant A should be deleted, since the defendant A did not rent part of the building of this case or did not have the right to claim the refund of deposit for lease against D, the plaintiff's claim for the purport of the whole argument and the statement in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5-1.

A lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution shall be filed.