1. The main claim of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) in total.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 23, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D Apartment 209 Dong 1304 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on April 23, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C, the owner of the instant real estate, with the deposit amount of KRW 22,00,000, and the term of existence from April 27, 2012 to April 27, 2014.

On April 27, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report for the resident registration of the said real estate and received a fixed date.

B. As to the instant real estate in progress with the auction procedure, each of the instant secured claims was set up, with a total of KRW 348,000,000,000, out of the amount of maximum debt to the new bank Co., Ltd. and

The defendant transferred the above right to collateral security from the above new bank and applied for the commencement of voluntary auction to the Goyang-gu District Court Goyang-gu E, and the auction procedure was conducted on July 15, 2013 according to the decision.

On the other hand, the plaintiff reported the demand and right as a lessee.

C. On May 20, 2014, the lower court drafted a distribution schedule to the effect that all remaining amounts excluding the pertinent tax are distributed to the Defendant, excluding the Plaintiff from the distribution of dividends.

Accordingly, the plaintiff raised an objection against 16,00,000 won out of the amount of dividends of the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 12, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that, as a legitimate tenant who entered into a lease agreement with respect to the instant real estate and paid the deposit, the instant distribution schedule, excluding the plaintiff from the distribution, is unfair, although he/she had the right to preferentially recover KRW 12,00,000 pursuant to the Housing Lease Protection Act, and thus, the said KRW 12,00,000 should be distributed to the plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant asserts to the purport that the distribution schedule of this case is justifiable, since the plaintiff is not the most lessee or cannot be protected as a small lessee in light of the purpose of the lease agreement.

(b).