1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 25, 2013, the Plaintiff leased (i) No. 102, Dong 1, 102, Dong 1, 102 (hereinafter “instant housing”) from the former Northern-gun D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) for two years from February 26, 2012, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 80 million and the lease term of KRW 2,000,000.

B. With respect to the instant housing, a voluntary auction was commenced as to the Jeonju District Court Branch B, and the Plaintiff filed an application for a report on each right and a demand for distribution as a lessee, but in the auction procedure, the said court distributed KRW 571,751,189 to the Defendant, except for the Plaintiff’s dividends.

C. On March 19, 2015, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution of the above auction procedure and stated that he/she raised an objection against KRW 14,00,000 out of the dividend amount against the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) although the Plaintiff leased the instant house with KRW 80 million, the amount of KRW 65 million out of the lease deposit was agreed to pay KRW 15 million after the completion of the registration of transfer of ownership of the instant house in the name of the representative director, and in fact, only the amount of KRW 15 million was paid. (b) The Plaintiff constitutes a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act; (c) as the Plaintiff falls under a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act, the amount of KRW 14 million out of the dividend amount against the Defendant in the said distribution procedure should be deleted and distributed to the Plaintiff.

B. Even if the Plaintiff actually paid KRW 15 million of the deposit for lease under the instant lease agreement due to the circumstances as alleged by the Plaintiff, insofar as the deposit for lease stipulated in the instant lease agreement exceeds the deposit for lease that can be preferentially repaid as a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act and the Enforcement Decree of the said Act, the Plaintiff does not constitute a small lessee of the amount stipulated in the said Act.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case.