1. The Defendant is among the distribution schedule prepared on July 29, 2016 by this Court concerning C real estate auction cases in this Court.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In fact, the Plaintiff is the owner of Ulsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Apartment 404 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

The establishment registration of the instant apartment was completed on January 9, 2014 by the mortgagee E, the debtor, the maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million under the Act No. 2633, Jan. 9, 2014.

(hereinafter “The instant mortgage”). E applied for a voluntary auction on the instant apartment based on the instant mortgage, and the auction procedure was commenced on July 29, 2015.

During the auction procedure on May 27, 2016, E completed the additional registration of the transfer of the right to collateral security on the ground of the transfer of the instant right to collateral security against Defendant S standard Lone Star Asset Management Loan Co., Ltd.

On the same day, Defendant Company completed the additional registration of the right of pledge of KRW 30 million with respect to the claim secured by the right to collateral security of this case against Defendant B.

In the above auction procedure on July 29, 2016, the instant court drafted a distribution schedule stating that the Defendant B, who is the pledgee of the instant right to collateral security, distributes KRW 20,463,562 to the Defendant Company, which is the mortgagee of the instant right to collateral security, KRW 9,536,438, and the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the right to collateral security, to the surplus amounting to KRW 8,827,

On the date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the amount of distribution to the Defendants.

On January 8, 2014, F, the Plaintiff’s wife, forged a loan certificate and a mortgage establishment agreement in the Plaintiff’s name and sent it to E without the Plaintiff’s permission, and F, on August 31, 2016, issued a summary order of KRW 1 million (200,000,000,000) from this court on the ground of the crime of forging the Plaintiff’s certificate of mortgage establishment, etc.

The above summary order became final and conclusive around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, facts with this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of the instant case is based on forged documents.