1. In case of the auction of the real estate Yangyang supportB, the competent court shall take charge of the auction of the real estate.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 27, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty C with respect to one square column in the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City D apartment 506 Dong-dong 2803 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and the deposit amount of KRW 25,00,000, and the lease period of KRW 23,012 from April 23, 2012 to April 23, 2014.

On March 27, 2012, the defendant completed a move-in report with the address of the above real estate and received a fixed date on August 9, 2013 from the above lease contract.

B. On March 4, 2011, the instant real estate in progress with the auction procedure was established by the New Bank Co., Ltd. with the maximum debt amount of KRW 606,480,000, which was the mortgagee, the maximum debt amount. On January 8, 2014, an additional registration of the transfer of the said right to collateral was completed in the Defendant’s name on the ground of the transfer of the confirmed claim.

On February 11, 2014, the plaintiff applied for a voluntary auction in place of the above real estate, and the procedure of the voluntary auction was initiated according to the court's decision to commence the auction.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). C.

On October 29, 2014, the above court made a distribution schedule to the Defendant with priority over 22,00,000 won as a small lessee and distributed the remainder of 506,496,463 won to the Plaintiff except for the pertinent tax.

Accordingly, the defendant appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the total amount of the plaintiff's dividends.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, evidence 9, Eul evidence 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the distribution schedule of this case should be revised by eliminating the amount of distribution to the defendant and distributing it to the plaintiff, since the defendant is the most lessee who cannot be protected under the Housing Lease Protection Act that entered into a lease agreement with respect to the real estate of this case for the purpose of receiving the distribution of small amount lease deposit.

As to this, the defendant is about the non-party C and the real estate of this case.