1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on September 22, 2016 in Suwon District Court Sungnam Branch C, the Plaintiff is against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The 203-dong 603-dong 203 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned the instant real estate by E. On October 31, 2011, the right to collateral security was established only 380,760 million maximum debt amount that the mortgagee of the instant real estate as the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation.

B. On October 31, 201, the Plaintiff, while making a loan to E, set up a right to collateral security of KRW 91 million with the following order of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation’s right to collateral security on the instant real estate.

C. On April 23, 2014, the date of preparation between Defendant A and E, prepared a lease contract (No. 2, hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with a security deposit of KRW 50 million, and subsequently, on July 2, 2014, Defendant A made a move-in report on the instant real estate, and obtained the fixed date of the said contract on July 11, 2014.

On the other hand, as E fails to repay its debts to the Plaintiff, on February 16, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction on the instant real estate (U.S. District Court Sungnam Branch Support C).

In the above auction procedure, Defendant A claimed that he was a small lessee subject to the top priority repayment based on the instant lease agreement and demanded the distribution of KRW 19 million.

Defendant B also claimed that he is a small lessee who is subject to the top priority repayment and demanded the distribution of KRW 19 million.

E. On September 22, 2016, the date of distribution of the above auction procedure, the said court prepared a distribution schedule to the effect that the Defendants deemed the Defendants as the lessee of small amount and distributed KRW 19 million each in the first order, and that the Plaintiff distributed KRW 40,391 as the subordinate mortgagee to the Plaintiff.

On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the total amount of the dividend distributed by the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The key issue of this part of the judgment against Defendant A is the small-sum lessee who is protected by the Housing Lease Protection Act, as alleged by the Plaintiff.