1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. According to the records, the following facts are acknowledged. A.

Attached Form

Of the respective real estate listed in the list (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the real estate Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were owned by B, and D respectively. However, on August 24, 2015, the procedure for the discretionary auction of real estate (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) was commenced with the Jung-gu District Court C on August 24, 2015, and was awarded a successful bid to E on April 8, 2016.

B. In the instant auction procedure on April 25, 2016, the court prepared a distribution schedule to distribute the amount of KRW 342,320,834, out of the sales price of KRW 346,990,00, and the amount of KRW 342,320,834 to the holder of the right to deliver (the pertinent tax) at the 198,830, and the second order to the holder of the right to deliver (the pertinent tax), KRW 232,142,870, and KRW 1,105,080 to the holder of the right to seize (public charges) at the 1,105,080, and KRW 7,445,160, and KRW 89,109,023, and KRW 4 to the owner of the National Health Insurance Corporation (the Republic of Korea) at the 346,000, and KRW 11,607,711 to D to the owner.

C. The Plaintiff asserted that he is the lessee of the second floor of the instant building among the instant real property, and raised an objection to the whole amount of D’s dividends by attending the meeting on the date of distribution open on the same date, but the execution court notified that the Plaintiff’s objection is unlawful and thus dismissed, and the distribution was completed by paying dividends in accordance with the distribution schedule.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. Ex officio, a lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution is deemed to have been filed with the aim of preventing other creditors from receiving dividends in accordance with the distribution schedule and seeking the confirmation of the amount of dividends as alleged by the Plaintiff, and the person who appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection may raise an objection. In a case where the distribution court rejected the objection on the grounds that the objection is deemed unlawful, the person who raised an objection shall have raised an objection as to the execution and received a provisional disposition ordering the suspension of compulsory execution.