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

A. On August 8, 2011, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 125,000,000 to Nonparty B, and completed the registration of the establishment of the second floor of the building of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City owned by B (hereinafter “instant building”) with respect to KRW 162,50,000, the maximum debt amount regarding the second floor of the building of the building of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City owned by B (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The Plaintiff on October 13, 2014

Based on the right to collateral security, Incheon District Court D's application for auction of the instant building was made, and the decision of voluntary auction was rendered on October 14, 2014 by the above court.

C. The Defendant entered into a lease agreement with B as of April 19, 2014, which was stipulated from May 9, 2014 to May 8, 2016, with respect to the instant building, as the lease deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000, and the term of lease from May 9, 2014 to May 8, 2016. The Defendant asserted that there was a claim for the return of the deposit of KRW 168,550,000,000, excluding the unpaid rent of KRW 3150,000,000, and filed an application for a report on the right and demand for distribution with the auction court around October

On June 25, 2015, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) that distributes the amount of KRW 103,571,801 to the Defendant, who is a small lessee, and KRW 16,850,00, and KRW 86,457,71 to the Plaintiff, who is the applicant creditor (the mortgagee) in the third order.

E. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and stated an objection to the full amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on July 2, 2015, which was within seven days thereafter.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 4, 6, and 8 (including various numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The conclusion of a lease agreement on the instant building between B and B, which was the main debt excess of the Plaintiff’s assertion, is a fraudulent act, and thus, the amount of dividends against the Defendant should be deleted due to its revocation and restitution to its original state.

B. The summary of the defendant's assertion is that the defendant entered into a lease contract with B.