1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants seek correction of each dividend amount exceeding KRW 7,181,877 of the instant lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 13, 2013, the Plaintiff prepared a lease agreement between the owner G and the owner G of the first floor room of the first floor among the detached houses of the 2nd floor in Dongducheon-si, E and F ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) regarding the instant real estate as the lease deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000 and the lease period of KRW 24 months from August 30, 2013.

On August 30, 2013, the Plaintiff received a move-in report with the instant real estate and received a fixed date.

B. The Seoul Livestock Industry Cooperatives, the mortgagee of the instant real estate, filed an application with D for concurrent holding of office as to the instant real estate, and the instant court commenced a voluntary auction procedure with respect to the instant real estate on March 4, 2015, and prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) stating that the Defendants distribute KRW 14,363,753 to the Defendants in the order of priority on the distribution date on March 4, 2015.

C. On March 11, 2015, the Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection to the distribution against KRW 7,181,87 of the dividend amount of the Defendants, and filed the instant lawsuit on March 11, 2015, within one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 4, 6, 10 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the legitimacy of the part seeking rectification of the distribution schedule exceeding KRW 7,181,877 of the instant lawsuit ex officio, which seeks rectification of the distribution schedule, exceeding KRW 7,181,877 of the instant lawsuit.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection only to KRW 7,181,877 out of the amount of distribution against the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff’s filing of a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution with respect to the portion in which the Plaintiff did not raise an objection does not have any interest in litigation as to the part in which the distribution schedule became final and conclusive, and thus, the part seeking rectification of the distribution schedule exceeding KRW 7,181,877 among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.

3. The remainder of the claims

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a legitimate tenant of the real estate of this case, and the lease deposit is guaranteed.