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

A. On May 26, 2015, the registration of creation of a mortgage on the F apartment G (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City F apartment G (hereinafter “E”), which was jointly owned by D and E, was completed on May 26, 2015, with respect to the establishment of a mortgage on the first-class priority, which was established by the debtor H and the mortgagee as I Co., Ltd. as the maximum debt amount, the maximum debt amount of 39 million won on August 17, 2017, and the debtor H and the mortgagee Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant apartment”).

B. According to the application for voluntary auction by the Korea Housing Finance Corporation to which I acquired the claim from the Company, the auction procedure of the instant apartment was conducted to Suwon District Court C. On December 20, 2018, the Plaintiff acquired the aforementioned right to collateral security and secured debt from J Co., Ltd. and completed the registration of collateral security transfer.

C. In the above auction procedure, on June 25, 2019, this court set up a distribution schedule that distributes KRW 15,80,000 to the Defendant, who is the lessee of small claims, KRW 377,140 to the Defendant, who is the lessee of small claims, KRW 377,140 to the 2nd order, who is the holder of the right to issue the second order, and KRW 216,00,00 to the Korea Housing Finance Corporation, which is the holder of the right to apply for the second order, and KRW 182,360 to the National Housing Corporation, the holder of the right to issue the fourth order, and KRW 5,9

On June 28, 2019, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant on the date of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit on June 28, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the lease agreement of this case was concluded by the Defendant by abusing the right to preferential payment under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that the Defendant has the right to preferential payment under the Housing Lease Protection Act. Thus, the distribution schedule prepared by the Defendant on the premise that the Defendant is a small lessee of a claim protected under the Housing Lease Protection Act should be revised

B. The judgment is deemed to have the appearance such as the genuine lessee.