1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on November 22, 2018 by the above court with respect to the case of the voluntary auction of D real estate in Incheon District Court D.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry of evidence Nos. 1 to 5 (including paper numbers) of the basic facts, each entry of the grounds for the claim in the separate sheet can be recognized.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant constitutes the most lessee, and the defendant asserts that the distribution schedule of this case should be corrected as ordered by the order. The defendant leases the loan of this case for his/her father, E actually resides in the loan of this case. Thus, he/she is the true lessee.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments regarding the foregoing evidence, the lower court: (a) concluded a lease agreement with F on April 5, 2012 under which the Defendant leased the instant loan by setting the lease deposit of KRW 22 million; and (b) from April 5, 2012 to April 4, 2014; (c) completed the move-in report on the instant loan on October 11, 201 by E, his/her father, who is the Defendant’s father, and completed the move-in report on the same day and obtained the fixed date on the said lease agreement.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, namely, ① the instant lease agreement was made out as a two-way agreement between the defendant and F without brokerage of a licensed real estate agent. At the time, it seems reasonable that the defendant, who has an address in Seocheon-gu G Building H, Nam-gu, Seoul, and F, who entered into a lease agreement under the two-way agreement without brokerage of a licensed real estate agent, concluded a lease agreement without brokerage (the defendant asserted that the defendant entered into a lease agreement with J, who is the agent of F through the Internet wholesale chain, and did not enter into a contract by proxy even in the instant lease agreement made by both agreements, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the contract was made by J on behalf of F), ② the defendant, in lieu of paying the net money, bail, etc. equivalent to 20 million won at the time of the lease deposit.