1. It was drawn up by the above court on October 8, 2014 with respect to the voluntary auction of real estate C with Goyang-gu District Court Goyang-gu Seoul District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 7, 2010, with respect to the 101st floor of the Subdivision of the Goyang-dong Seoul Metropolitan City D Building, a collateral security was established at the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives, the maximum debt amount of which is KRW 643,500,000 on October 7, 2010. However, upon the said mortgagee’s voluntary auction application, the auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) was commenced on February 13, 2013 with the Goyang-dong District Court C (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

B. On April 28, 2011, the Defendants submitted a report on rights and a request for distribution to the effect that the term of lease between E and E, the owner of the instant building, was from April 28, 2011 to April 27, 2012, while the lease deposit was KRW 15,00,000, for the lease deposit, the lease deposit was leased and registered as a business.

C. On October 8, 2014, in the above auction procedure, the distribution schedule was formulated to the Defendants, who distributed KRW 13,500,000, respectively, to the Defendants, and distribute the remainder of KRW 528,945,422, excluding the pertinent tax, to the Plaintiff who acquired the claim from the National Federation of Collateral-Backed Family Associations.

(hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the total amount of the Defendants’ dividends.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8 and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants lost opposing power under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, since the business registration of the defendants was closed prior to the completion date of demand for distribution, the defendants lost their opposing power, and the defendants did not clearly indicate the leased part of the building, but the drawings attached to the application date for business registration were attached thereto. Thus, the defendants asserted that the distribution schedule of this case where the defendants distributed the lease deposit to the defendants, on the premise that the defendants are lessee subject to protection

As to this, the Defendants are the District Court F.F., which was conducted in conjunction with the instant auction procedure.