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

A. In the case of the auction of B real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the previous Jeju District Court: (a) prepared on February 8, 2017, which was the date of distribution, distributed KRW 428,259,241 to the Defendant, who was the applicant for voluntary auction and the mortgagee, who was the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) the distribution of KRW 428,259,241 (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

B. The Plaintiff completed the move-in report on the instant real estate on December 18, 2014, with the lease deposit of KRW 15 million and the lease deposit of KRW 15 million for the fourth floor among the instant real estate, which was the owner of the instant real estate, from December 16, 2014 to December 36, 2014.

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

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a small lessee who leased the instant real estate from NA, and thus, the Defendant, a senior security holder, should receive a preferential dividend.

Therefore, the distribution schedule of this case must be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

3. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff completed the move-in report on the instant real estate on December 18, 2014. However, there is no evidence to know the fixed date in the lease agreement prepared between the Plaintiff and Korea. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case premised on the premise that the Plaintiff is entitled to receive the deposit in preference to the Defendant, a senior lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act, rather than the Defendant, who is the senior lessee of the Housing Lease Protection Act, is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.