2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant filed a report on the right and demand for distribution with the Seoul Southern District Court C's voluntary auction of real estate (hereinafter referred to as the "instant auction") with respect to the 701st apartment of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E apartment No. 701 (hereinafter referred to as the "instant apartment"), which was owned D, on June 20, 2013, by asserting that the Defendant was the lessee of the instant apartment.

B. On February 12, 2014, the executing court, on the date of distribution, distributed 35,769,000 won to the Defendant, who is the applicant creditor and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, who is the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, and prepared a distribution schedule that did not distribute to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff stated an objection against KRW 25,00,000 among the dividends against the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on February 19, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 5, and 14 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On September 1, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with D to lease the instant apartment with the deposit of KRW 25 million, monthly rent of KRW 400,000,000,000, and completed the move-in report on the instant apartment on April 8, 2013, and completed the move-in report on the instant apartment by April 10, 2013, and the deposit was fully paid up by April 10, 2013, the Plaintiff asserts that KRW 25,00,000 out of the amount distributed to the Defendant should be distributed to the Plaintiff, who is the small lessee of

B. On this issue, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is the most lessee who entered into a lease agreement to obtain unjust benefits by abusing the Housing Lease Protection Act, and that the plaintiff does not have any claim for return of deposit for lease under a lease agreement, or that the plaintiff cannot be deemed a small lessee of the Housing Lease Protection Act.

3. Determination

A. In light of the overall purport of the pleadings, the following facts may be acknowledged in each entry of Gap's evidence 1, 3, 5, 6, Gap's evidence 1 to 6, Gap's evidence 8 to 13, and Eul's evidence 1 to 3:

1) As of September 1, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D and the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”).