1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim shall be dismissed by this court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the plaintiff's preliminary claim, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding the judgment on the plaintiff's preliminary claim added by this court as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The lease agreement concluded on December 22, 2015 between G and the Defendant on the instant real estate asserted by the Plaintiff constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to ordinary creditors, including the Plaintiff, and thus, ought to be revoked. As such, the amount of dividend of the Plaintiff and the Defendant should be corrected as stated in the purport of the restitution.

B. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the conjunctive claim part of the instant lawsuit on the legitimacy of the conjunctive claim.

According to Article 406 (2) of the Civil Act, a lawsuit for cancellation of a fraudulent act and reinstatement shall be filed within one year from the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause of cancellation, and within five years from the date of the juristic act, and a lawsuit for cancellation of a fraudulent act and reinstatement filed after the expiration of such

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the amount of dividends to the Defendant among the dividend table prepared on March 15, 2017 in the instant auction procedure.

In addition, on March 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit claiming correction of the amount of dividend against the Defendant as zero won. On July 26, 2017, the first instance court asserted that the lease agreement concluded between G and the Defendant on December 22, 2015 between G and the Defendant on the instant real estate was not a real lease agreement. In addition, even if the Defendant actually entered into a lease agreement with G and resided in the instant real estate, the Plaintiff paid only the small amount of lease deposit by abusing the priority repayment system of the small amount of lease deposit, even though it is aware that the lessee had priority over the leased real estate, and the lessor also leased the said lease deposit.