A. On November 13, 2019, in the case of the auction of real estate D's lease of D's real estate located in Busan Eastdong District Court, which was owned by E, the Defendant was apportioned KRW 150,00,000 as the fourth mortgagee, and the Plaintiff was apportioned KRW 122,336,926 out of KRW 300,00 as the fifth mortgagee’s maximum debt amount.

B. On January 25, 2012, E completed the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon with the person having chonsegwon as the Defendant on the ground that the contract was concluded on January 25, 201 with respect to the above real estate on the grounds of the contract on January 25, 2011, from January 25, 201 to November 25, 2014; however, the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon was made by false means for the purpose of obtaining a loan from a financial institution, and there was no receipt of the deposit money between E and the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence, purport of whole pleadings

2. Since there is no claim for lease money of KRW 150,00,000 against the Defendant E in determining the cause of the claim, the above distribution schedule should be deleted from the dividend amount of KRW 150,00,000 against the Defendant, and it should be corrected to increase the dividend amount of KRW 122,336,926 against the Plaintiff (the fifth order) to KRW 272,336,926 to the lower-ranking Plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the argument of the Intervenor joining the Defendant

A. The Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s assertion 1) is a person entitled to provisional attachment and seizure of the above right to lease on a deposit basis. The Defendant’s allegation that the contract to lease on a deposit basis between E and the Defendant is null and void as a false conspiracy cannot be asserted against the Defendant’s third party acting in good faith. As such, the amount of dividend against the Defendant shall not be deleted. 2) E and the Defendant entered into a contract to exchange sports center operating business and the intermediate care hospital operating business, and terminated the above exchange contract after completing the registration of the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis. As such, it is concluded that there was no claim against E.