1. Defendant . Of the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on May 20, 2014 in the Seoul Central District Court H real estate auction case.

1. Circumstances leading to the dispute of this case;

A. In Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City I 293㎡ and its ground reinforced concrete sloping roof, six residential facilities and housing units (hereinafter “instant real estate”) were owned by J.

B. On April 12, 2013, upon the Plaintiff’s application, there was a decision to commence voluntary auction on the instant real estate (Seoul Central District Court H; hereinafter “instant auction”). The registration of the decision to commence voluntary auction was completed on April 15, 2013.

In the auction of this case, the type of demand for distribution was set on November 27, 2013.

C. In the instant auction, the Defendants asserted that there exists a claim for return of the lease deposit as indicated in the table “amount” as indicated below, and applied for distribution on May 20, 2014, the said court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that the Plaintiff and the Defendants pay dividends in the same amount as indicated in the table “amount” as indicated below (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) on the date of distribution.

The parties to the claim (unit of won): The amount of dividends (unit of won: plaintiff 1,764,513,2631,031,037,280,000 16,089,000 16,000 16,312,314 of small-sum lessee defendant B 30,000 16,245,390,390 16,000 16,000 16,240,000 16,245,390 30,000 16,312,314 16,314 16,000 16,000 16,000,000 16,16,0016,15,101, 1005, 1005, 1005, 1005, 1005, 1005.

D. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff stated that the Defendants raised an objection to the total amount of dividends.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, 5, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the so-called tenant with only the external appearance of the lease or the person who fails to meet the requirements for opposing power and preferential repayment right stipulated in the Housing Lease Protection Act, and thus, the instant distribution schedule should be corrected by eliminating the dividend amount to the Defendants and distributing it to the Plaintiff.