1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on August 22, 2019, with respect to the Suwon District Court D's D's auction of real estate.

1. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B

A. 1) The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) A, a creditor of E and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security on seven real estate, including the F, owned by E, filed an application for a discretionary auction on the said real estate with Suwon District Court D on July 7, 2017; and (b) the decision to commence auction was rendered on the 10th of the same month. (c) The Plaintiff acquired all claims against E and the right to collateral security on the said seven real estate from G.

3) Meanwhile, between Defendant B and E on March 3, 2017, Defendant B leased from E the first floor of the H building I (hereinafter “instant building part”) of the said seven real estate, the rent deposit amounting to KRW 20 million. Defendant B made a move-in report of the instant building portion to his domicile on March 3, 2017, and obtained the fixed date on June 28, 2017.

5) The instant distribution schedule was prepared, on August 22, 2019, on the ground that the voluntary auction procedure for the said seven real estate was in progress, and on the ground that it is a small lessee on the date of distribution, the Defendant B was in the top priority, and the Plaintiff was in the distribution of KRW 1,017,832,238 to the Plaintiff. 6) The Plaintiff raised an objection against the entire amount of dividends against the Defendant B on the date of distribution, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution within seven days thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence No. 1-3, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The plaintiff asserts that the main purport of the parties' assertion is that the tenant who did not actually rent the part of the building of this case and did not have the right to lease deposit, or the tenant who entered into the lease contract of this case with intent to make unjust profits by abusing the Housing Lease Protection Act cannot be deemed as the tenant of small amount protected under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and that the amount of the dividends of the defendant B shall be deleted from the distribution schedule of this case and the amount of the dividends