1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on October 10, 2014 by the said court with respect to the Suwon District Court B real estate auction cases.

Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 6 and the whole purport of pleadings, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

With respect to the apartment Nos. 105, 503, 105, 503, 503, 105 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), the Plaintiff: (a) on March 14, 2006, the maximum debt amount of KRW 432,00,000; (b) on March 23, 200, the maximum debt amount of KRW 169,000,00

8. 8. Conclusion of each contract to establish a mortgage with a maximum amount of KRW 91 million, and around each of the above dates C extended a total of KRW 654,220,349 to C.

When the payment of principal and interest was delayed, the Plaintiff received a voluntary decision to commence the auction of the instant apartment on November 28, 2013 based on each of the above collateral, and the registration of voluntary decision to commence the auction was completed on the same day.

When the apartment house of this case was sold at KRW 330,100,000, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that distributes the amount of KRW 330,414,550,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

The Plaintiff stated an objection against the amount distributed by the Defendant on the date of distribution, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on October 17, 2014, which was seven days or less.

The Plaintiff’s assertion on the cause of claim argues that the distribution schedule should be revised by allocating the dividend amount of KRW 12 million to the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff did not have the right to lease the apartment of this case, or the Defendant did not have the right to receive dividends in the auction procedure for the apartment of this case because the lease agreement between the Defendant and C constitutes false representation of agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant.

On May 31, 2013, the defendant issued the apartment of this case from C.