1. Of the distribution schedule on October 2, 2014, the amount of dividends against the defendant among the Seoul Central District Court B real estate auction cases, 25,711.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 1, 2010, C leased to D the Seongbuk-gu Seoul E and F Yang-ground buildings owned by D (hereinafter “instant building”) KRW 25 million and monthly rent of KRW 5 million, and D operated restaurants at around that time.

B. On March 18, 2013, the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives loaned a business fund to C as collateral to the instant building, etc., but did not pay C the principal and interest of loan. On November 12, 2013, the National Federation filed an application for voluntary auction with the Seoul Central District Court B on the instant building, etc.

C. On December 20, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired the above loans 1,622,806,456 and the right to collateral security from the Suhyup Bank.

However, on January 24, 2014, the Defendant, the husband of the lessee D, claimed that on November 7, 2005, he leased one room (the room attached to D operation restaurant) from C from the building of this case on November 7, 2005, the Plaintiff leased the deposit amount of KRW 30 million. On the lease contract submitted at that time, the down payment, intermediate payment, the term of lease, the date of preparation, the brokerage column is a public space, and the remainder amount is written only in the public space, and the fixed date is not affixed.

E. On October 2, 2014, the said auction court drafted a distribution schedule to the Defendant, 1,395,346,617, including distributing KRW 25,711,145 to the Defendant of the small-sum lessee, who is the applicant obligee and the mortgagee, the second priority, and distributing KRW 1,395,346,617 to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff has raised an objection to the whole amount of dividends of the defendant.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 9 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleading

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant and other lessees D are married parties, the part that the Defendant leased is part of D’s lease, and the Defendant did not submit materials that the Defendant actually paid security deposit.