1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. C borrowed KRW 22,00,000 from the Plaintiff on October 25, 2012, and completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 28,600,000 with respect to the 2,507 Dong-dong, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon (the apartment of this case) owned by C (the apartment of this case).

B. On May 10, 2013, regarding the apartment of the instant apartment, the Incheon District Court rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction to B upon the application of Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd.

C. In the auction procedure stipulated in the foregoing Paragraph (b), the Defendant asserted that he/she is a small lessee and filed an application for a report on the right and demand for distribution, and on May 28, 2014, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute the amount of KRW 5,60,00 to the Defendant and KRW 9,244,490 to the Plaintiff.

On the same day, the plaintiff stated an objection against the total amount of dividends of the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, inasmuch as the Defendant is the most lessee who entered into a false real estate lease agreement to preferentially receive the deposit, the amount of KRW 5,600,000 against the Defendant should be adjusted to KRW 0, and KRW 9,244,490 to KRW 14,84,490 among the dividend table prepared in the above auction procedure.

B. Therefore, in light of the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 13, 4, 11 through 11, the defendant paid the lease deposit amount of KRW 10,000,00 to C around March 22, 2012 and leased the apartment of this case (monthly rent is KRW 400,000), and the defendant made a move-in report on the resident registration in the apartment of this case and resided with the fixed date of the lease contract. Accordingly, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is a true tenant, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.