1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on January 29, 2016, as to the auction auction case B by the Incheon District Court, the defendant is against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 30, 201, the Plaintiff leased money to C and was set up a second priority collective security right with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by C as collateral (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with respect to the real estate (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 109,200,000, and the debtor C.

B. The instant apartment was sold to D on December 23, 2015, at the request of the Korea Exchange Bank, a first priority collective security (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), from the voluntary auction procedure commenced on June 24, 2015 (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch B; hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

C. In the above auction procedure, the Defendant reported the claim amounting to KRW 20 million and reported the secured claim of the above right to collateral security. D. The Plaintiff reported the secured claim of the above right to collateral security.

On January 29, 2016, the auction court: (a) recognized the Defendant as a small lessee and prepared a distribution schedule on the order (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”) stating that the Defendant distributes KRW 16.8 million (the amount obtained by deducting the overdue difference from the security deposit of KRW 20 million) to the first priority order; and (b) the Plaintiff did not receive any distribution at all by the senior right holder.

The amount of claims held by the plaintiff against C exceeds the amount of dividends of the defendant.

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

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4, 7 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Defendant is the most lessee or the lessee who is not worth protecting the right to preferential reimbursement.

(2) The lease contract between the defendant and C shall be revoked as a fraudulent act.

B. Defendant’s assertion ① The Defendant is a genuine lessee who actually pays the lease deposit and satisfies the requirements for repayment under the law.

(2) The defendant did not intend to prejudice the other creditors of C through a lease agreement with C.

3. Determination

(a) Each entry of Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the E community service center of this court.