1. Seoul Northern District Court C (D) prepared by this Court on April 5, 2016 with respect to the auction of real estate;

1. Basic facts

A. On November 5, 2014, the Plaintiff is a mortgagee who completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 45,000,000 with respect to the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Building No. 402 on the fourth floor (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On July 7, 2015, upon the Plaintiff’s application for voluntary auction, the Seoul Northern District Court C voluntarily rendered a decision to commence the auction of the instant building on July 7, 2015, and thereafter, the Seoul Northern District Court D voluntarily rendered a decision to commence the auction of the instant building upon the Plaintiff’s voluntary auction application.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant auction procedure,” in total. (c)

In the instant auction procedure on July 20, 2015, the Defendant filed a report on the right and demand for distribution by asserting that he/she is a small lessee with respect to one square column of the instant building. On April 5, 2016, the Seoul Northern District Court drafted a distribution schedule with the content that “20,000,000 won as a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act with the first priority to the Defendant, as the lessee of a small amount under the Housing Lease Protection Act, 95,440 won as the relevant creditor, and 72,766,826 won as a collateral security (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) in order to the Bank of Korea in the second priority to the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.”

On the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the whole amount of dividends to the Defendant, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on April 11, 2016, within one week from that date.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant is not the lessee who actually paid and resided the lease deposit for the purpose of actual residence, but the small-sum lessee who entered into a false lease agreement for the purpose of receiving dividends, and thus, it should be corrected to delete the amount of dividends to the Defendant and distribute it to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. As to the grounds for objection against distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution.