1. The Plaintiff among the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on July 5, 2016 at the Seoul Southern District Court C’s auction of real estate.

1. Claim against the defendant A;

(a) Indication of claims: It is as shown in the reasons for the claim, provided that it is limited to the part against the defendant A;

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Articles 208 (3) and 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act (a judgment made by deeming that the application is made);

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. Basic facts 1) Of multi-household housing located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, 201 (hereinafter “instant building”).

() On October 22, 2015, the Seoul Southern Southern District Court CVoluntary Auction case, where the auction procedure was commenced on July 5, 2016, distributed KRW 22,300,00 to Defendant A as a small lessee on July 5, 2016, and KRW 23,200,00 to Defendant B, respectively, and distributed KRW 116,29,236 to the Plaintiff as a first-class mortgagee (hereinafter “instant dividend table”).

(2) On July 5, 2016, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure and raised an objection against the said Defendants by asserting that he/she is the largest lessee of Defendant A and B, and filed the instant lawsuit seeking rectification of the instant dividend table on July 12, 2016.

3) Meanwhile, as of December 16, 2014 between Defendant B and the owner E of the instant building, the lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) between Defendant B and the owner of the instant building, stating that “one column among the two partitionss of the instant building is leased from Defendant B in KRW 25 million, monthly rent of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.”

(4) Defendant B made a move-in report at the location of the instant building on February 11, 2015, and obtained a fixed date on February 12, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1,

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of whether Defendant B is the most lessee, the evidence Nos. 4 and 5 of this Court, and the Korean Standards for the submission of financial transaction information by the Korean Bank and the Korean Bank, Inc., and the entire purport of the arguments, Defendant B concluded a false lease contract with Party E and concluded it as a genuine lessee.

1. The instant lease contract is an aggregate building.