1. A distribution schedule prepared on April 22, 2015 by the above court with respect to the case of compulsory auction of real estate B and C (combined) by the Incheon District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 16, 2011, the Plaintiff jointly secured the land E in Incheon-gun with respect to the building No. 1 (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by D, Incheon-gun, Incheon-gun, Incheon-gun, and the obligor completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage that constitutes the F and the maximum debt amount of the building.

B. On October 18, 2012, the Incheon District Court B issued a decision to commence compulsory auction on the real estate stated in the attached list, including the instant building, and rendered a voluntary decision to commence auction to the Incheon District Court C on November 19, 2012.

(C) The combined auction procedure (hereinafter referred to as “instant auction procedure”).

On August 8, 2014, the Defendant leased 201 units of the instant building from D on March 6, 2012 to KRW 20,000,00 as lease deposit, and resided after paying the said lease deposit and receiving delivery of the said 201 unit, the Defendant reported the right and made a demand for distribution under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

Accordingly, on April 22, 2015, the said executing court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) stating that the Plaintiff shall distribute the amount of KRW 91,39,617 in the order of priority to the Defendant as a mortgagee of real estate 14,00,000 in the order of priority, and that the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 91,39,617 in the order of priority to the Plaintiff.

E. On April 29, 2015, the Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection to the whole amount of distribution to the Defendant, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on April 29, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 (including branch numbers in the case of provisional number), Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 6-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that, in collusion with D in order to receive a small amount of deposit under the Housing Lease Protection Act, the defendant's assertion that the amount of dividend against the defendant should be deleted because it is the most lessee who concluded a lease contract with D by falsity.

On this issue, the defendant himself.