1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The initial creditor against Plaintiff B succeeded to the status of the Incheon Livestock Cooperative or the Plaintiff on December 11, 2013. In order to secure the repayment of the claim amounting to KRW 115 million against B on February 26, 2009, the establishment registration of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) was completed with respect to the Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C Apartment 102 Dong 704 (hereinafter “instant real property”) owned by B, in order to secure the repayment of the claim amounting to KRW 115 million against B on February 26, 2009.

B. On November 25, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction based on the instant right to collateral security, and on the same day, the decision to commence voluntary auction (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) was rendered by this court D.

C. In the instant auction procedure, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with B on June 28, 2013 on the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) and filed a report on the right and demand for distribution by asserting that the Defendant constitutes a small lessee having the right of priority repayment pursuant to the Housing Lease Protection Act by completing the transfer of resident registration and the occupancy thereof.

On June 20, 2014, the executing court of the instant auction procedure: (a) deemed the Defendant as a small lessee on the date of open distribution on June 20, 2014; and (b) drafted a distribution schedule stating that the Defendant shall distribute KRW 94,552,760 to the Plaintiff, who is a mortgagee, as a creditor requesting auction (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”); (c) the Plaintiff stated an objection to the entire dividends against the Defendant on the date of distribution; and (d) filed the instant lawsuit on June 24, 2014, one week thereafter.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant lease agreement constitutes a fraudulent act against the obligees B and that the instant distribution schedule should be revised by means of restitution to its original state. On the other hand, the Defendant also argues that the instant lease agreement constitutes a fraudulent act.