1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on November 20, 2017 with respect to this Court C and D (Dual) auction cases of real estate.

1. Basic facts

A. In lending money to F on September 7, 2016, the Plaintiff’s representative E obtained a right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with respect to G land and its six-story building owned by F (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from Dongducheon-si, the maximum debt amount was set at KRW 270 million, and the Plaintiff was transferred the said right to collateral security on September 22, 2016.

B. According to the distribution schedule prepared on November 20, 2017 by this Court C and D (hereinafter “instant auction case”), which is the debtor, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 49,276,548 out of the maximum debt amount of KRW 270,000,000 as the mortgagee, and according to the Defendant’s application for the report of the right and the demand for distribution submitted by the Defendant, the Defendant received the distribution of KRW 15,00,000 as the priority lessee (the Defendant’s right holder was a lease agreement with F on September 30, 2016; hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. On the date of distribution of the auction case of this case opened on November 20, 2017, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the total amount distributed by the Defendant.

[Ground for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number for those with a serial number)

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff asserts that the lease contract of this case was concluded falsely, such as the lease contract of this case was not suitable for residence due to bath, and the defendant asserts that the lease contract of this case was the most lessee.

On the other hand, on April 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) leased part of the second floor used for bath in the instant real estate from F during the lease period from May 11, 2015 to May 10, 2016; (b) concluded the instant lease contract by increasing the lease deposit to KRW 30 million on September 1, 2016 upon request of F for the increase of the lease deposit; and (c) asserted that it is a genuine lessee who has resided in the second floor of the said bath.

B. Each entry of the evidence Nos. 6 and 8 as to whether the defendant is the most lessee.