2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. The Defendant is the 1/5 equity right holder of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Land (hereinafter “instant land”), and E is the owner of the 4/5 equity right holder of the instant land and the 3rd floor building on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On November 19, 2013, upon the application of the Korea Saemaul Bank, which is a collateral security right, with respect to the instant land and building, the decision of commencement of auction was rendered by Seoul Central District Court C on November 19, 2013, and the entry registration of the said decision was completed.

C. On December 16, 2014, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule containing KRW 15,00,000, KRW 15,000,000 to F of the small-sized lessee of the second priority, KRW 26,560, KRW 150, and KRW 10,705,150 to Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the third holder of the attachment right, KRW 10,705, and KRW 641,861,123, KRW 680, KRW 259,537, and KRW 3,018, KRW 190, Defendant 306, KRW 27581 to the transferee of the third holder of the third holder of the first collective security right, and KRW 3,780, KRW 2537, and KRW 537, and KRW 57,581 to the Gyeyang Savings Bank, the pledgee of the second collective security right, respectively.

(hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). D.

The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against KRW 25,00,000 among the amount distributed to the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution on December 19, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5 evidence, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. On November 12, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the third floor of the instant building is 63.93 square meters (hereinafter “the third floor of this case”) among the instant buildings from E.

The instant distribution schedule, which excluded the Plaintiff from the dividends, is unfair, and thus, is not the Defendant within the scope of KRW 25,000,000, which is recognized as the top priority repayment right. The instant distribution schedule, which is a genuine small-sum lessee, has paid all of the leased deposits in KRW 30,00,00 and resided with the same day move-in report and the fixed date.