1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is dismissed.

2. The Seoul Northern District Court C real estate auction case.

1. Basic facts

A. Upon the Plaintiff’s application, the Seoul Eastern District Court 201Da13705 issued a payment order against D with respect to the third floor E of Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu (hereinafter “instant sub-story building”), the Seoul Northern District Court C opened a compulsory auction procedure for real estate auction with the Seoul Northern District Court C.

B. During the above compulsory auction procedure, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule which is not distributed to the Bank of Korea, which is the senior mortgagee, to the Defendant A, who distributed the amount of KRW 132,087,763 after deducting the cost of execution from the proceeds of sale and interest of the instant sub-story building; KRW 32,00,000; KRW 30,000 to the Defendant B; KRW 137,400; and KRW 137,400 to the Defendant Nowon-gu; and KRW 69,950,363 to the Bank of Korea, which is the senior mortgagee; and that is not distributed to the Plaintiff who is the applicant creditor.

C. On May 14, 2015, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and thereafter raised an objection against KRW 11,107,820, among the dividends of Defendant A, to KRW 11,107,820, among the dividends of Defendant B, respectively.

The plaintiff's claim against D based on the above executive title is KRW 11,107,820 as of the date of submission of the final statement of claim.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 10, 11 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) around January 15, 2007, Defendant A leased 32,000,000 won the fourth floor of the instant sub-story building from D to the deposit for lease. However, by filing a report on the transfer of the instant sub-story building to the “Seoul Nowon-gu building No. 401”, Defendant A’s resident registration with the registry of the instant sub-story building and with the building number different from the registry of the instant sub-story building cannot be deemed as the resident registration of the instant sub-story building under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and thus, it is unreasonable to recognize Defendant A as a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act and distribute it as a preliminary non-resident under the Housing Lease Protection Act.