1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on June 30, 2014 by the above court with respect to the auction case of real estate C by the Jung Government District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 20, 2010, Han Bank completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 871 million, the maximum debt amount of KRW 130 million, each of the maximum debt amounts of KRW 130 million, and the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by D (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On June 24, 2013, the Han Bank applied for a voluntary auction on each of the instant real estate to Jung Government District Court C, and the real estate auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction”) commenced. The Plaintiff acquired the right to collateral security from Han Bank’s Han Bank to acquire the right to collateral security from Han Bank.

C. On February 1, 2013, Defendant A leased 7 partitionss for the second floor room from among the buildings listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table from D (hereinafter “instant building”) for the period of January 31, 2015, the lease deposit amount of KRW 25 million, and the lease period of KRW 25 million. Defendant B claimed that the second floor room of the instant building was leased from D from February 1, 2013 to January 31, 2015, the lease deposit amount of KRW 25 million, and the lease period of KRW 25 million.

On June 30, 2014, the auction court set up a distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”) which distributes KRW 14 million to the Defendants, a small lessee, who is the right to deliver KRW 2,131,420 to the Defendants, who are the right to deliver the amount of KRW 1,024,03,152,38 deducting KRW 9,089,290 from the remainder of KRW 1,024,063,098, which was the amount to be distributed as dividends, to the Defendants, who are the right to deliver the amount of KRW 2,131,420.

E. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and stated an objection against the Defendants’ whole amount of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit on July 4, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The summary of the assertion is that the Defendants are the most lessee who has only the appearance of a lease contract even if they did not enter into the lease contract with D, or are entitled to protection under the Lease Protection Act.