1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on December 23, 2016 by the said court with respect to the Daegu District Court B’s auction of real estate.

1. Basic facts

A. As to the instant apartment units Nos. 4, 103, and 103 (hereinafter “instant apartment”), the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of each of the maximum debt amount of KRW 32,400,000 on Jan. 28, 2010, and KRW 21,600,000 on Aug. 18, 2014, and completed the registration of provisional attachment of KRW 225,403,811 on Dec. 22, 2015, according to the decision of provisional attachment with the branch court of the Daegu District Court.

B. On March 23, 2016, upon the Plaintiff’s request for auction based on each of the above collective security rights, the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court) rendered a decision to commence voluntary auction on the instant apartment on March 23, 2016. On December 23, 2016, the said court set up a distribution schedule with the purport that the Plaintiff would distribute KRW 17,00,000 to the Defendant, other than the dividend dividends, as the first priority lessee of the secured debt of each of the above collective security rights, the amount of KRW 7,187,305 to the Plaintiff as the right holder of the provisional attachment, and KRW 6,620,801 to the Defendant as the lessee of the fifth fixed

C. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of the above distribution, and raised an objection to the whole amount of the Defendant’s dividends, and filed the instant lawsuit within one week thereafter.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff applied for the payment order of loan claim against C, etc., and the payment order of 2015 tea 7136 dated November 6, 2015 was finalized as it is.

According to the above payment order, C et al. is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 222,258,143 and delay damages.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 4, 10, 11

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Regarding the Plaintiff’s assertion that the dividend of the lease deposit against the Defendant is unreasonable, since the Defendant did not have any substance or opposing power, the Defendant did not admit part of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and did not present any specific assertion.

B. According to the records in Gap evidence No. 5, the judgment was made around January 10, 2015 with respect to the apartment of this case between the defendant and C.