A. On July 1, 2010, C concluded a mortgage agreement with the Plaintiff regarding D apartment Nos. 707 of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by it, and concluded a mortgage agreement with the Plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court’s registration No. 41299, Jul. 1, 2010, the maximum debt amount was KRW 598 billion with the Plaintiff.

B. On July 13, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for the auction of real estate rent with the Seoul Central District Court B regarding the instant apartment based on the foregoing right to collateral security.

Accordingly, the decision on the voluntary commencement of auction was made on July 16, 2012, and the auction procedure was in progress.

C. On September 24, 2012, the Defendant filed a report on the right and demand for distribution, asserting that he/she was the lessee who leased one square column from C among the apartment of this case from C to KRW 30 million among the apartment of this case.

On April 5, 2013, a court of execution prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”) that distributes the amount of KRW 365,086,31 to the Defendant, who is a mortgagee, to the head of Gangnam-gu, Seoul, who is a holder of the right to deliver the lease of small amount under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, to distribute the amount of KRW 25,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

E. On April 5, 2013, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution held on April 14:00, and raised an objection against the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and thereafter filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on April 11, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Party’s assertion [Plaintiff] The Defendant is the most lessee who prepares a false lease agreement to abuse the protection system of small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act without actual intention of lease.

Even if the defendant is a legitimate tenant, the lease contract between the defendant and C is a fraudulent act in excess of the obligation of C.