1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on January 28, 2015 by the above court with respect to B real estate compulsory auction cases.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 30, 2012, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (232,70,000) regarding real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On January 13, 2014, Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. filed an application for a compulsory auction on the instant real estate with the District Court B (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) and rendered a judgment of the commencement of compulsory auction on January 14, 2014. The Defendant filed an application for a voluntary auction on the instant real estate with the District Government District Court D on January 22, 2014, and rendered a voluntary decision of commencement of auction on January 24, 2014.

C. On March 31, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for a report on rights and a demand for distribution on the ground that the Plaintiff is a small lessee who leased the instant real estate in the instant auction procedure with a deposit of KRW 16 million.

On January 28, 2015, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule stating that the amount to be distributed actually on the date of distribution shall be KRW 183,191,971, which is to be distributed in full to the defendant who is the mortgagee.

E. On January 28, 2015, the Plaintiff E appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution and raised an objection against KRW 16 million out of the dividend amount against the Defendant. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on February 3, 2015, within one week thereafter.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 15, entry of Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts to the purport that it is unreasonable for enforcement court to distribute only to the Defendant, since the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C who is the owner and actually resided after paying the deposit money. 2) The Defendant asserts to the purport that the Plaintiff is a lessee who entered into a lease agreement to abuse the Housing Lease Protection Act even if the Plaintiff is the largest lessee or not.

B. Determination as to whether a person is a genuine lessee is made is made in accordance with Article 6-2.