A. On December 3, 2010, the Plaintiff extended a loan of KRW 112,00,000 to B (hereinafter “instant loan”) and completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-

B. B, from July 4, 2014, lost the benefit of time due to delinquency in paying interest on the instant loan, and the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction based on the instant collateral security on September 24, 2014, and on September 25, 2014, the procedure for voluntary auction of real estate was initiated with Suwon District Court C following the decision to commence voluntary auction on September 25, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). C.

In the instant auction procedure, the Defendant asserted the right of lease under the lease contract of KRW 35,00,000 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) concluded on January 2, 2007 between the Defendant and B with respect to the instant real estate, and filed a report on the right of lease and a request for distribution on October 6, 2014.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s instant lease agreement was concluded in collusion with D by the Defendant, who is the father of D, and the Defendant merely entered into a false contract with D, and accordingly, sought confirmation that there exists no right of lease of the Defendant under the instant lease agreement.

B. Around January 2007, the Defendant paid a lease deposit with funds created by selling the previous house owned by the Defendant, and entered into the instant lease agreement with D, and thereafter resided in the instant real estate.

Therefore, the lease contract of this case is valid, and the defendant is the true lessee.

3. The above findings of the judgment and the evidence duly admitted are as follows.