Suwon District Court C compulsory auction of real estate and voluntary auction of D (duplicate) real estate, the above court on August 13, 2020.

1. On July 16, 2018, the Plaintiff, a credit service provider, set the interest rate of KRW 42,300,000 to Nonparty E as 1.8% per annum (21.6% per annum) and the due date on July 16, 2019. On July 24, 2018, the Plaintiff, a credit service provider, completed the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security, which was made to Nonparty E, the maximum amount of the claim regarding the instant apartment on July 24, 2018.

On January 3, 2019, the Defendant prepared a lease contract with respect to one room among the instant apartment units (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). As to the instant apartment units, the compulsory auction procedure for real estate was commenced with the Suwon District Court C on March 6, 2019, and thereafter the said auction procedure was initiated on September 24, 2019 upon the commencement of voluntary real estate auction procedure with the same court D on September 24, 2019 (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). The Defendant filed a report on the right and demand for distribution under the instant lease contract on May 13, 2019.

On August 13, 2020, the execution court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “the distribution schedule of this case”) containing the contents of distributing KRW 3,905,064 to the Plaintiff, who is a lessee of small claims, in the order of priority among KRW 223,640,90,00, and KRW 27,000,00 to the Defendant, who is the lessee of small claims, in the third order.

The Plaintiff appeared on the dividend date and raised an objection against the total amount of the Defendant’s dividends, and filed a lawsuit of objection against the Defendant on August 19, 2020, within seven days thereafter.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is primarily because the defendant's collusion with E and constitutes the most lessee who entered into the instant lease agreement with E by falsity.