In order to secure loan claims of KRW 600 million against E, the Plaintiff, as to the instant real estate, completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with respect to the entire building of KRW 446.9 square meters and the entire building on land owned by E (hereinafter “instant real estate” by combining the site and buildings; when specifying only the building among them, “the instant building”) on March 5, 2012, the maximum debt amount of KRW 780 million was KRW 780 million.

On April 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a motion for voluntary auction (D) concerning the instant real estate with the Incheon District Court for the instant auction procedure and the Defendants’ demand for distribution, and the said court rendered a ruling to commence the auction on April 18, 201.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant auction procedure.” During the instant auction procedure, Defendant A filed a report on the right and demand for distribution with respect to the first floor of the instant building, and Defendant B filed a report on the right and demand for distribution with respect to the second floor, as to the fourth floor.

On April 29, 2015, on the date of distribution implemented on April 29, 2015, the lower court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that distributes each reported lease deposit to the Defendants, who demanded a distribution as a small lessee, in the first order (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”).

On May 6, 2015, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the entire amount of dividends to the Defendants on the date of distribution, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on May 6, 2015.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C, as to the purport of the entire statement (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the entire pleading of evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and Defendant C, as Defendant C is the most lessee of the fourth floor of the instant building, and thus, Defendant C’s lease agreement constitutes a fraudulent act, and as such, Defendant C should be removed from the amount of dividends to Defendant C. As such, Defendant C’s lease agreement constitutes a method of restitution.