1. As to the case of the voluntary auction of real estate in Gwangju District Court Sejong District Court, the said court prepared on December 23, 2014.

Basic Facts

A. On July 22, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage agreement on E’s land and a single-story house on the land owned by D (hereinafter “instant land/house”). On the same day, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over KRW 45,00,000 for the said real estate in the future.

B. Thereafter, the Plaintiff executed D’s loan of KRW 20,000,000 on July 23, 2004, and KRW 20,000,00 on May 13, 2005.

C. However, as D did not repay the above loan obligation, the Plaintiff applied for an auction based on the foregoing right to collateral security, and on April 15, 2014, the voluntary auction on the land and housing of this case (hereinafter “instant auction”) was commenced with the Gwangju District Court Wood-gu, Gwangju District Court, Gwangju District Court, and on December 23, 2014, the said court drafted a distribution schedule as follows.

Defendant A A’s dividends of 112 grounds for Defendant B’s dividends of 12,00,000 won 12,000,000 won 26,302,213 won dividends of 100% 58.45% of the dividends of 12,00,000 won for Defendant A’s creditors who applied for a lessee (small-sum lessee) (small-sum lessee).

D. In the above auction procedure, the contents of the lease contract submitted by the Defendants while filing a report on rights and demanding a distribution are as follows.

A lessee’s lease contract date of the leased portion / Monthly rent contract period is 64.43 square meters, and there is no amount of KRW 8,000,000 in the living room in the house in the house in the house in the house in the house in the room in the house in the house in the house in the defendant A, the lessee’s lease period is 13,00,000,000 on December 20, 2012; from March 7, 2013 to March 7, 2016 to March 1, 2016, Defendant B2, and the kitchen (48 square meters) (around 13,00,000,000 to February 1, 2012 to February 1, 2012; or the purport of the entire pleadings and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff did not actually rent the instant house, but rather did not intend to gain unjust benefits by abusing the protection system of small-sum lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act. The Plaintiff’s assertion in collusion with D to build the appearance of the lease.

Therefore, it is illegal to recognize the defendants as the prior owner of higher priority than the plaintiff and pay dividends. Of the dividend amount against the defendants, the plaintiff's insufficient dividend amount of KRW 18,697,787 = 45,00.