1. The Defendant is in accordance with the distribution schedule dated November 28, 2014, for the auction of the real estate rent B in Gyeyang-gu District Court Goyang-gu, the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Korean National Bank Co., Ltd. established, on November 13, 2001, the right to collateral security equivalent to KRW 74,100,000 of the maximum debt amount, the right to collateral security equivalent to KRW 62,40,000 of the maximum debt amount, the right to collateral security equivalent to KRW 62,40,000 of the maximum debt amount, and the right to collateral security equivalent to KRW 117,00,000 of the maximum debt amount on April 3, 2002, and the right to collateral security equivalent to KRW 16,16, Nov. 16, 2006, respectively.

B. On November 1, 2012, between D and D, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with a deposit of KRW 20,000,000 for one column among the instant real estate, and the term of lease from November 14, 2012 to November 13, 2014, and completed a move-in report on resident registration on November 14, 2012.

After September 17, 2013, the above contract obtained a fixed date.

C. On February 27, 2014, the above national bank filed an application for commencement of auction of real estate in order to Goyang Branch District Court B, and continued the auction procedure after receiving the decision.

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

The above court set up a distribution schedule shall preferentially distribute 12,00,000 won for small amount of deposit to the defendant, and shall distribute the remainder of 165,036,889 won to the plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 8, 10-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that, even if the defendant entered into a lease agreement on the instant real estate, the main purpose of the lease agreement is to abuse the right of priority repayment under the Housing Lease Protection Act rather than to use and benefit from the instant building. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the act of entering into the instant lease agreement is a fraudulent act detrimental to D's creditors and the defendant's bad faith is presumed, and thus the lease agreement of this case should be revoked. Ultimately, the distribution schedule of this case where the defendant distributed small amount of deposit to the defendant is distributed.