A. On December 27, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 94 million to C on December 27, 2012, and completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over KRW 122,22 million with respect to the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E [Road Name, Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F] No. 402 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. Since then, the Plaintiff applied for a voluntary auction of real estate on the instant real estate to Seoul Northern District Court B, based on the foregoing collateral security, and this court rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction on November 29, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). C.

The Defendant asserted that the instant real estate was a lessee who paid the deposit amount of KRW 30 million during the instant auction procedure, and filed a report on the right and demand for distribution.

On the date of distribution conducted on December 19, 2014, this Court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) with the content that distributes the amount of KRW 25 million to the Defendant, who demanded the distribution of KRW 25 million as a small lessee, and to the Plaintiff, who is the applicant creditor and the mortgagee, the mortgagee and the mortgagee, in the second order.

E. Accordingly, on the aforementioned date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the entire amount of distribution to the Defendant, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on December 24, 2014, within one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s lease agreement on the instant real estate is invalid as a false declaration of intention, or cannot be deemed as a small-sum lease protected under the Housing Lease Protection Act because it constitutes a lease for the purpose of collecting claims. Thus, the instant distribution schedule, which deemed the Defendant as a genuine small-sum lessee and distributes the amount of KRW 25 million, should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim. 2) The Defendant was known to the Defendant from the original point of view, and it is necessary for C to provide funds prior to completion under the condition that C promises to lease upon completion of the instant real estate.