Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff established the instant right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) on August 2, 2013, with respect to the establishment of a mortgage of KRW 4404,00,000 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of the Jung-gu Incheon Special Metropolitan City D Building No. 301, Jun. 2, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the instant right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”).

On August 27, 2014, the Incheon District Court rendered a ruling to commence the auction of the instant real estate (B) on August 27, 2014, upon the motion of the creditor capital company against the defendant's demand for distribution C.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”. During the instant auction procedure, the Defendant filed a report on the right and demand for distribution by asserting that the lessee of the instant real estate was the lessee of the instant real estate.

On April 28, 2015, on the date of distribution implemented on April 28, 2015, the court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that distributing KRW 15 million to the defendant who demanded distribution as a small lessee (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) in the order of priority.

On April 30, 2015, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the whole amount of dividends to the Defendant on the date of distribution, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on April 30, 2015.

【In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion as to the plaintiff's assertion as to the purport of the plaintiff's assertion as to the time when the defendant entered into a lease agreement with C, the amount of lease deposit, the circumstances leading up to the conclusion of the contract alleged by the defendant, etc., and considering the fact that the defendant has resided in the real estate of this case, the amount of dividends against the defendant should be deleted. ② Even if the defendant's contract is acknowledged as genuine, the above lease agreement constitutes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff.