1. Defendant among the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on April 12, 2017 with respect to the Suwon District Court A car auction case.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 20, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a facility lease agreement between the Plaintiff and B and B with respect to C B’s cruise vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). The key content is as indicated in the “the terms and conditions of the instant contract” in attached Form 2.

As to the instant automobile, new registration was completed on August 19, 2013 in the name of B, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of the instant automobile at the claim price of KRW 45,00,000 on the same day.

B. (1) On March 16, 2016, the Plaintiff, as a mortgagee, filed an application for an automobile rental auction on the instant automobile, and rendered a decision to commence the auction to Suwon District Court A.

The Defendants requested the seizure authority for each of the instant vehicles to deliver each of the claims in arrears, such as tax claims and health insurance.

Article 22(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The distribution court shall pay 580,080 won at the time of Defendant East Sea among the amounts to be actually distributed on April 12, 2017; 3,489,159 won to Defendant National Health Insurance Corporation; and 3,523,319 won and 7,99,639 won to Defendant Republic of Korea; hereinafter referred to as “the distribution schedule of this case” of this case.

A) The Plaintiff, a mortgagee, has drawn up an objection against the Defendants on the date of the said distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit on April 14, 2014. [Grounds for recognition: the fact that there is no dispute, the entries in the evidence A No. 1-5, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. A person who is standing to sue in a lawsuit of demurrer against the defendants' assertion is present on the date of distribution, and limited to the creditor or debtor who has raised an objection under the substantive law as to the distribution schedule, and even in a case where the goods owned by a third party were sold as an object of compulsory execution due to mistake as owned by the debtor, such third party is not a party interested in the auction procedure, and therefore, the