1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on January 27, 2015 with respect to voluntary auction cases involving B real estate in this Court, the Defendant.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 15 and 16:

C on May 18, 201, when collecting KRW 215 million from the Savings Bank, and borrowing KRW 200 million from the Savings Bank, C made a registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the obligor C with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) on the wife D and joint owners of the said company in order to secure the above loan obligation.

B. The Savings Bank Co., Ltd. failed to pay the principal and interest of the above loan, and around February 2014, upon request by the court B, filed an application for a voluntary auction on the instant apartment based on the above collateral security, and the auction procedure was commenced on the 17th of the same month, and the instant apartment was sold to E on December 22 of the same year.

C. On March 10, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for a demand for distribution with the content that the instant apartment was leased at KRW 25 million after setting the lease deposit amount as KRW 25 million with C and D at the above execution court on October 18, 2013.

On January 27, 2015, the above execution court prepared a distribution schedule with the content of distributing the remainder of KRW 159,970,635 to the defendant, who is a small lessee, in the first order of 182,273,835 won to be actually distributed on the date of open distribution, and the third order of priority, and to the plaintiff, who acquired the above claim against C from the Savings Bank, who received the above claim against C from the Savings Bank, respectively.

E. On the date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on February 2, 2015.

2. The plaintiff's primary assertion is that the defendant has concluded the lease contract of this case in collusion with the lessor in order to gain unjust benefits by abusing the protection system of small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act. Thus, the distribution of dividends to the defendant is illegal, and the defendant and C are ancillary.