1. The Seoul Eastern District Court C, D, and E (Dual) Real Estate Compulsory Auction case is held on July 10, 2015 by the above court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 5, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with F on a deposit of KRW 10 million with respect to the 20 square meters in a warehouse with part of a rooftop (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) among the real estate listed in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and filed a move-in report on the instant real estate on December 11, 201, by setting the lease term as the term of December 14, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On August 22, 2014, the procedure for compulsory auction on the instant real estate was conducted under the Seoul Eastern District Court C, D, E (Dupl), and the Defendant filed an application for a report on the right and demand for distribution with the small lessee who entered into the instant lease agreement at the said auction procedure. On July 10, 2015, the said court distributed KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant, who is a small lessee, as the lessee on the date of distribution of the said auction case, and prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”) that distributes KRW 38,322,196 in the order of 19 in the Plaintiff, who is a person entitled to provisional seizure.

C. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection to the entire amount of distribution of the Defendant, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on July 15, 2015, one week thereafter.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or do not clearly dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. (1) The part concerning the rooftop of the Plaintiff’s assertion is merely a warehouse that is unable to reside, and the Defendant is not a lessee to whom the right of priority repayment is applied as stipulated in Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act. Therefore, the distribution schedule should be revised to distribute the amount distributed to the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

(2) The Defendant asserted that he had kept all the house on the rooftop of this case, and had the lessor F reside in 201 among the real estate of this case and demanded the lessor F to create a room on the rooftop. It was from the beginning of this case.