1. The case of request for a voluntary auction of the real estate B located in the Suwon District Court was prepared on November 11, 2014 by the said court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Industrial Bank of Korea completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on September 3, 2008, with respect to D Apartment Nos. 101, 302, 101, and 302 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), which is the maximum debt amount of No. 312,00,000, and the establishment of a mortgage on April 24, 2009, which is the maximum debt amount of No. 180,000,000, respectively.

B. The Industrial Bank of Korea applied for voluntary auction of the instant apartment based on each of the above collateral security interests, and the decision on voluntary auction was rendered on May 22, 2013 to Suwon District Court Ansan Branch B.

C. After that, the Plaintiff acquired each of the above collateral security claims from the Industrial Bank of Korea.

In the above auction procedure, the Defendant asserted that the apartment of this case is a lessee with respect to one column among the apartment of this case, and made a demand for distribution. On November 11, 2014, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule stating that KRW 14,00,000,000, and KRW 478,520, and KRW 375,827,717 among the total claims of KRW 294,174,923 shall be distributed to the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”) in the first order to the Defendant as to KRW 308,653,43, and the amount to be actually distributed on November 11, 2014.

E. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against the full amount of KRW 14,00,000 against the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on November 17, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 14, 16, and 17, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that, in collusion with C to receive a small amount of lease deposit, the Plaintiff is the most lessee who entered into a false lease agreement, and thus, the instant distribution schedule should be revised by eliminating the total amount of dividends to the Defendant and distributing the amount to the Plaintiff. 2) On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the instant distribution schedule was duly formulated, as it is the genuine lessee who entered into a lease agreement with C as an entity.

B. Determination Nos. 3 and 3.