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

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

1. Basic facts

A. C borrowed KRW 125 million from the Plaintiff on March 14, 2012, and completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the instant housing with the debtor C and the maximum debt amount of KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff as security.

B. On October 28, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for a voluntary auction on the instant housing based on the foregoing right to collateral security, and the decision to commence voluntary auction was rendered to the court B, and the auction procedure was in progress.

C. During the above auction procedure, the Defendant filed a report on the right and demand for distribution by asserting that it is a lessee who paid the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million with respect to the instant housing.

On July 16, 2014, the date of distribution, at the above auction procedure, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute 17,040,000 won to the Defendant as the first-order lessee and 76,242,677 won to the Plaintiff as the second-order mortgagee (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and made a statement of objection to the distribution against the total amount of the Defendant’s dividends, while the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of objection to the distribution on July 23, 2014, which is within one week thereafter.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 8, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the argument of the most lessee

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is merely the most lessee who entered into a false real estate lease contract with C, and the Defendant, who recognized the Defendant as a small lessee and distributed the amount of KRW 17 million,00,000,00 as stated in the instant distribution schedule, sought correction as stated in the claim.

B. According to the aforementioned evidence, the objective financial data proving that the lease deposit that the Defendant paid was delivered to C is not submitted, and the fact that the Defendant did not obtain a fixed date on the lease agreement is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant entered into a false real estate lease agreement with C, and it is otherwise acceptable.