1. On July 2, 2014, the Daegu District Court I support the Daegu District Court, and the J (Consolidated) real estate auction case.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 21, 2012, with respect to the operation of the K-ground Building (hereinafter “instant real estate”), on the motion of the Plaintiff, who is the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (the maximum claim amount of KRW 846,00,000), Daegu District Court I and J (Joint) started the auction procedure of real estate rent.

A report on the move-in of the lease deposit on the date of the Defendant’s lease contract was filed, and KRW 15 million was filed on November 16, 201 between B, 2011 and December 16, 2011, and KRW 15 million on December 8, 2008, C, January 12, 201, 201, KRW 15 million on September 12, 201, D, 2011, KRW 20 million on September 8, 2011, KRW 15 million on September 31, 2011, KRW 15 million on July 31, 2009; KRW 1.5 million on July 31, 2009; KRW 1.5 million on July 31, 2009; KRW 1.5 million on July 31, 2015, KRW 1.5 million on July 31, 2019.

The Defendants asserted that part of the instant real estate is a lessee, and filed a report on the right and demand for distribution in the said auction procedure, as indicated below.

C. On the date of distribution of the above auction procedure implemented on July 2, 2014, the court of execution recognized the Defendants as small lessee having preferential right to payment from KRW 563,722,953, the amount to be actually distributed, and distributed the amount of KRW 12,00,000 each, to the Plaintiff. The court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes KRW 465,671,543 to the Plaintiff.

On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit after stating an objection against the entire amount of distribution to the Defendants.

【Defendant A, B, D, G, and H: The purport of the entire pleadings by Defendant C, E, and F: Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 150 subparag. 3 (Voluntary Confession Judgment) of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff 1’s assertion by the parties is the most lessee with the appearance of the lessee, not the actual lessee.

The main purpose of the lease agreement entered into by the Defendants is not to use and take profits from the housing, but to recover the claims in preference to the prior security holders. Therefore, the claims can be protected as the lessee of small amount under the Housing Lease Protection Act.