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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On June 12, 2012, a decision to voluntarily commence the auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) was made on June 12, 2012 upon the Plaintiff’s application as a mortgagee with respect to cement brick structure, brick structure, and 62.81 square meters and cement brick structure, slive roof structure, single-story, and 6.48 square meters (hereinafter “instant housing”), which was owned by B, and the auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) was in progress.

B. In the instant auction procedure, E, the Defendant’s type of the instant housing, claimed that he/she leased part of the instant housing as KRW 30 million on February 24, 2010, with the term of 20 months from March 10, 2010, and the term of lease. The Defendant himself/herself claimed that he/she leased part of the instant housing as KRW 20 million on February 24, 2010, with the term of 20 million from March 10, 2010, and 20 months from March 10, 2010. The Defendant reported each right and demanded each distribution.

C. On February 26, 2014, the date of distribution, E, the Defendant: (a) 20,000 won for each of the first-order tenants; and (b) the Plaintiff, the third-order mortgagee, 92,764,615 won for each of the dividends of KRW 92,615 (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”); (c) The Plaintiff appeared on the said date of distribution and made a statement of objection to the distribution on the whole of the Defendant’s dividends; and (d) filed a lawsuit of objection to the instant distribution on March 3, 2014 for up to one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4, 5, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion E merely leased the entire house of this case from C, and the defendant did not have leased the above house, but the defendant conspired with E to obtain a small amount of deposit under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the appearance was merely small as if the lease contract was concluded with C respectively. Thus, the defendant is ultimately the defendant.