1. It was drawn up by the above court on December 30, 2014 with respect to the auction of real estate B in Gyeyang-gu District Court Goyang-do.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 27, 2006, the right to collateral security C created the right to collateral security at KRW 420,000,000 for the maximum debt amount with respect to the Goyang-gu E apartment and 1204, Dong 108 (hereinafter “instant real property”).

B. On November 8, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C and D, the owner of the pertinent real estate, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 18,00,000 and the lease period of KRW 18,00,00, from December 9, 2013 to February 8, 2015.

On December 9, 2013, the defendant reported the transfer of resident registration to the above real estate and received a fixed date.

C. On December 27, 2013, 2013, the Korean Bank applied for the commencement of the auction on the instant real estate to the Ji Government District Court Goyang Branch B, and the auction procedure was in progress according to the said decision.

In the above procedure, the defendant reported a right as a lessee and demanded a distribution.

On December 30, 2014, the lower court prepared a distribution schedule to the effect that a small amount of KRW 16,000,000 is preferentially distributed to the Defendant, and that the said court distributes KRW 275,412,576 to the Plaintiff who acquired the claims of the Bank of Korea (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

Accordingly, the plaintiff appeared in the distribution procedure and raised an objection to the full amount of the defendant's deposit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, 11, and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is the most lessee who entered into a lease agreement with respect to the real estate of this case in order to receive a small amount of lease deposit, and that the conjunctive establishment of the lease right to the defendant by entering into the lease agreement of this case constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditors of the lessor, and ultimately, seek revocation thereof.