1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

In order to secure a loan claim of KRW 77,00,000 against Nonparty C, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with respect to the real estate owned by Nonparty C (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 101,00,000 on August 18, 208.

C did not pay interest on the above loan obligation. On October 29, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for a voluntary auction of real estate on the instant real estate with the Incheon District Court B, based on the instant collateral security on October 29, 2013, and this court rendered a decision to commence voluntary auction on October 29, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). During the instant auction procedure, the Defendant filed a report on the right and the demand for distribution by asserting that the instant real estate was a lessee who paid a deposit of KRW 15,00,000 as to the instant real estate.

On June 27, 2014, this Court drawn up a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) that distributes KRW 13,640,00 to the Defendant who demanded a distribution as a small lessee on the date of distribution, and KRW 59,140 to the Bupyeong-gu Incheon, the holder of the right to deliver (the pertinent tax), and KRW 44,444,31 to the Plaintiff, the holder of the right to collateral security (the “instant distribution schedule”).

On July 4, 2014, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the whole amount of dividends to the Defendant on the date of distribution, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on July 4, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number), and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings are asserted by the plaintiff, and the defendant is the most lessee who entered into a false lease agreement concerning the real estate in order to receive a small amount lease deposit under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the court's distribution of the defendant as a small lessee is unlawful. Thus, the distribution schedule of this case should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

The lease contract between the defendant and C is a fraudulent act.