1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the Seoul Central District Court on August 28, 2015, with respect to D's auction of real estate.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet owned by E (hereinafter “instant building”), the Plaintiff set up a collateral on May 31, 2012, with the debtor F and with the maximum debt amount of KRW 180,000,000.

B. On October 11, 2013, Defendant B entered into a lease agreement with Korea-style partitions among the instant buildings with a deposit of KRW 30,000,000, and completed a move-in report on November 28, 2013 and received a fixed date.

On February 25, 2014, Defendant C entered into a lease agreement with E on KRW 25,00,000 with respect to the first floor partitions of the instant building, and completed a move-in report on the same day and received a fixed date.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application for the commencement of the instant auction procedure with respect to the instant building, based on his/her right to collateral security, with the Seoul Central District Court’s decision to commence the voluntary auction procedure on March 3, 2014, and accordingly, the voluntary auction procedure on the instant building (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

On August 28, 2015, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) with the content of allocating KRW 25 million to Defendant B and C, the top priority lessee on the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure, and distributing KRW 64,042,018 to the Plaintiff, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

Accordingly, the plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the total amount of the dividend of the defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendants did not constitute the subject of protection stipulated in the Housing Lease Protection Act as the most lessee who entered into a lease agreement on the instant building in order to receive a small amount of lease deposit. Therefore, the amount of dividend 64,042,018 won against the Plaintiff out of the instant dividend table is 114.