A. At around 201 to 2001, C had completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on various land and buildings, including the second floor building D located in Yongnam-gun, Namnam-gun (hereinafter “instant building”), which was owned by C, in order to secure the obligations of loans to the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (hereinafter “C”), and had filed an application for voluntary auction as C did not repay the above loan.

B. Therefore, on April 1, 2013, the auction of the above real estate, including the building of this case, was commenced voluntarily from the Gwangju District Court Mapo-dong Branch B (hereinafter “instant auction”). On January 21, 2006, the Defendant submitted a lease agreement to the effect that on January 21, 2006, the Defendant leased the second floor (60 square meters) of the instant building to KRW 10,000 and KRW 300,000 of the rent, from January 21, 2006.

C. On November 20, 2014, the above auction court: (a) recognized the status of “house lessee” and distributed 10,000% of the dividend rate of KRW 10,00,000 to the Defendant; and (b) drafted a distribution schedule with the content that the Plaintiff who acquired the above loan claim from Nonghyup to the Plaintiff, who acquired the above loan claim from Nonghyup, distributes the dividend rate of KRW 1,831,141,073 to the Plaintiff, as “applicant obligee,” and raised an objection to the entire dividend amount against the Defendant by attending the date of distribution.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not know that he leased the second floor of the building of this case from C, or did not actually possess the building, or used it for non-residential purposes so far.

Therefore, it is illegal for the defendant to pay dividends to the defendant in preference to the plaintiff on the premise that the defendant is a true tenant subject to the Housing Lease Protection Act.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s evidence Nos. 3, 1, and 2 as a whole.