1. With respect to the Daegu District Court B and C (Dual Real Estate) compulsory auction cases, the same court shall have the same jurisdiction over the compulsory auction cases on December 7, 2016.

1. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant National Agricultural Cooperative Federation and Samsung Card Companies

(a)the reasons for the indication of the claim are as specified in the separate sheet;

(b) Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts (a judgment made by deeming the relevant provisions as private investors);

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant’s National Dives Fund, and new card company

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) around October 11, 2006, the Plaintiff leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million on the first floor E-ground housing of KRW 64.43 square meters (hereinafter “instant housing”); (b) on October 11, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report to the said domicile; and (c) obtained a fixed date as to the said lease agreement.

After that, the plaintiff lost the above lease contract, and completed the lease contract again with D on March 29, 2016, and obtained the fixed date on March 29, 2016.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is a small lessee of not more than KRW 30 million under the Housing Lease Protection Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and is entitled to receive the payment of KRW 12 million among them as the top priority. Therefore, the amount of the dividend against the Plaintiff should be revised, as stated in the claim, among the distribution schedule in the auction procedure (Seoul District Court Branch B and C (Dual) with respect to the housing of this case, as the dividend amount against the Defendants, who are subordinate right holders.

B. In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff is a lessee who paid the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million to D with respect to the instant housing only with the respective descriptions (including each number) of subparagraphs 1 through 8, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 1, and 7, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion based on this premise is without merit to examine further.

1. On October 1, 2006, the Plaintiff made a move-in report to the instant real estate and received a fixed date, but the said fixed date is recognized.