1. A distribution schedule prepared on July 22, 2014 by the said court with respect to the Suwon District Court B and C (Dual) auction cases of real estate.

The following facts may be acknowledged according to the purport of Gap-1 and 7 and the whole pleadings.

On July 22, 2014, the Suwon District Court prepared a distribution schedule with the content of distributing dividends to the Defendants, who are collateral security holders, as described in paragraph (1), to the Defendants, except for dividends to the Plaintiffs, who demanded to be a lessee of small amount under the Housing Lease Protection Act, on July 22, 2014, in the real estate auction case as stated in paragraph (1) of the order against the Young-gu, Youngwon-gu, Youngwon-si, 305 Dong 1903 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”).

On September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff paid 25 million won a lease deposit for one room among the instant apartment units from D, and leased for two years (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and completed resident registration as well as resident registration prior to the entry registration of the decision to commence the sale of the said real estate, and resided with the director.

Therefore, as the Plaintiff constitutes a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act, the Plaintiff’s distribution of dividends to the Plaintiff is excluded, and the above court’s measures that were distributed to the Defendants as stated in the Disposition 1 is unfair, so the distribution schedule should be revised as above.

The Defendants asserted that the instant lease agreement was concluded on October 7, 2013, which is the starting date of the auction for the instant apartment, and before October 7, 2013, and that there was a registration of collateral security or provisional seizure against the instant apartment, which exceeds the appraisal price, and that the object of the lease agreement is one column of apartment, etc. However, the Plaintiff is the most lessee. However, such circumstance alone is difficult to deem the Plaintiff as the most lessee, and rather, the Plaintiff could not actually receive a refund of part of the deposit for the said auction lease. Rather, the Plaintiff concluded the instant lease agreement to enter into a director in a horizontal house, which was previously resided for his father’s disability, with the mental disorder of the Plaintiff.