1. The same court shall have jurisdiction over the auction proceeds of the real estate acquired in order for the Government, the District Court and the High Court and the High Court to take charge of the auction proceeds.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In Yangyang-si, Yongsan-gu, Ilyang-si, D apartment No. 105, 801 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by C, and the Defendant is between C and C.

B. On May 15, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C as to one column among the instant real estate between August 15, 2012 and August 14, 2014, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000.

C. Meanwhile, the instant real estate was subject to the establishment of a right to collateral security in the name of Han Bank. However, one bank applied for the commencement of voluntary auction to Goyang-dong District Court Goyang Branch B, and the auction procedure was conducted on June 21, 2013 according to the decision.

The defendant filed a demand for distribution and a report on the right as a lessee in the above procedure.

On October 8, 2014, the above court set up a distribution schedule to the Plaintiff, giving priority over KRW 16,00,000,000, and distribute the remaining KRW 259,70,112,000,000, which remains after deducting the pertinent tax, to the Plaintiff who acquired the rights of Han Bank.

Accordingly, the plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection to the total amount of the defendant's dividends.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the lease contract concluded between the defendant and C cannot be viewed as a genuine tenant, and in the preliminary case, C concluded a lease contract with respect to the real estate in excess of debt, and the act of establishing the lease right to the defendant constitutes the subject of revocation of fraudulent act. Thus, the defendant's amount of dividend in the distribution schedule of this case should be deleted and the amount of dividend to the plaintiff should be increased.

In relation to this, the defendant paid C the lease deposit amount of KRW 27,00,000 to around October 2008 while residing in the real estate of this case. On May 15, 2012, the defendant additionally paid KRW 3 million when preparing a contract around May 15, 2012.