1. It was prepared on April 19, 2017 by the above court with respect to the auction case of the real estate B in Incheon District Court Branch B.

1. Basic facts

A. The auction procedure of real estate was conducted under the vice-support E and B (dupl) of the Incheon District Court with respect to the apartment 413-dong 901 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) in Bupyeong-si, Seocheon-si, D-si.

B. On April 19, 2017, the auction court: (a) on the date of distribution, deemed the Defendant as a legitimate small-sum lessee, and distributed KRW 27,00,000 in the first order; and (b) drafted a distribution schedule with the content that the Defendant did not distribute to the Plaintiff, the creditor of provisional seizure of KRW 11,389,57, the claimed amount, to the Plaintiff

C. On the date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection against KRW 11,389,57 out of the amount of dividends against the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution on April 26, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, 8, 7-1, 2-2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that as the defendant is the most lessee, the distribution schedule should be revised to distribute the amount of KRW 11,389,57 out of the amount of dividends to the defendant to the plaintiff.

On June 2, 2016, the defendant asserts that one room from among the apartment of this case from D on June 2, 2016 is leased to 30 million won of the lease deposit and the true lessee who has completed the moving-in report on the same day.

B. The judgment is based on the following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant leased one room, which is acknowledged as having comprehensively taken account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the above evidence, Gap evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, and Eul evidence No. 3. The apartment building of this case consists of three rooms, one room, one kitchen, one room, and two bathing rooms, and thus, the apartment building of this case is a vulnerable structure for others to live together and live together with each other. ② According to the Defendant’s assertion, six family members of the lessor (one father, two children, three children, and one father), who are his father, enter the house only at the weekend, and the first children are living at the university dormitory at the university, and the second children are actually living in the local area, and the lessor’s family members and four family members of the lessor are in the weekend.