1. The distribution schedule prepared on September 24, 2015 by the above court with respect to the case of the application for the auction of real estate H by the Seoul Central District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 22, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant building”) filed an application for an auction of real estate rent with respect to the five-story building on the ground outside Jin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, on which I owned (hereinafter “instant building”) and the commencement of the auction procedure was commenced as H of the Seoul Central District Court.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). B.

In the auction procedure of this case, Defendant B filed a report on the right and demand for distribution, respectively, by asserting that Defendant C was the lessee under subparagraph 206 of this case, Defendant C was 302, Defendant D was 108, Defendant E was 105, Defendant F was the lessee under subparagraph 501, and Defendant G was the lessee under subparagraph 201.

C. On September 24, 2015, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) stating that: (a) KRW 25,000,000,000 for Defendant B, C, F, and G, the lessee, and KRW 25,000,00 for each of the tenants; (b) KRW 20,000,000 for Defendant D; (c) KRW 20,000,00 for Defendant E; and (d) KRW 257,565,012 for each of the dividends to the Plaintiff, the mortgagee, as a collective security (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In order for the Plaintiff to exercise the right of priority repayment as a tenant of small claims, the Defendants met the requirements for counterclaim under Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act from the date of first commencement of auction to the time of demand for distribution, i.e., possession and resident registration of leased objects. The Defendants did not meet such requirements, or entered into a false lease agreement with the aim of receiving the priority repayment as a tenant of small claims in

Therefore, since the Defendants do not constitute a small lessee with the right of priority repayment, the Defendants seek rectification to delete the dividend amount to the Defendants and distribute the corresponding amount to the Plaintiff among the instant dividend table.

B. The following circumstances are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry of No. 1-1 to No. 5 in the judgment as to the claim against Defendant B.