A. On August 23, 2010, the establishment C of the right to collateral security took out a loan of KRW 430,000,000 from the Korea Exchange Bank, Inc., and established the right to collateral security at KRW 516,00,000 with respect to the D Apartment-gu, Yongsan-gu, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant real property”).

B. On February 7, 2014, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C, with respect to the instant real estate, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 28,00,000, and with the lease period of KRW 21,200,000, and with the lease agreement from February 21, 2014 to February 20, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) and received the move-in report and the fixed date on February 20, 2014.

C. On May 26, 2014, the Korea Exchange Bank filed an application for the commencement of a voluntary auction with respect to the instant real estate with the U.S. District Court Goyang Branch B, and the auction procedure was conducted on May 26, 2014.

In the above procedure, the defendant reported a right as a lessee and demanded a distribution.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff acquired the claim against C of the above bank.

In the above procedure, on January 28, 2015, the above court made a distribution schedule with priority over the Defendant to distribute the amount of KRW 22,00,000 to the Defendant and to distribute the amount of KRW 336,673,97 to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

Accordingly, the plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the total amount of the defendant's dividends.

[Ground of recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that, around the other hand, the defendant is the most lessee who is unable to be protected under the Housing Lease Protection Act by a false contract on the instant real estate in order to receive a small amount of lease deposit, and the conjunctive conclusion of the instant lease agreement with C in excess of his/her obligation should be revoked as a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor of C.