1. On the basis of the primary claim, this Court shall have jurisdiction over the voluntary auction of real estate B and C in this Court.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5:

On January 31, 2012, the Plaintiff received, from D, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with respect to the E apartment 107,1611, Jung-gu, Incheon, Jung-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by D, the maximum debt amount of KRW 216,00,000, the debtor D, and the Plaintiff as the mortgagee.

B. On May 15, 2012, D, to Hyundai Savings Bank Co., Ltd. on the instant apartment, registered the establishment of a mortgage on the instant apartment with the maximum debt amount of KRW 61,100,000, and the debtor D.

C. On April 2013, Hyundai Savings Bank, Inc., applied for an auction of real estate rent on the 22th of the same month with respect to the apartment of this case to this court, and the auction procedure was commenced on the 22th of the same month. On March 2014, the Plaintiff also applied for an auction of real estate rent to this court C with respect to the apartment of this case, and the same month.

3. 25. The auction procedure was initiated.

On October 30, 2014, the above court of execution prepared a distribution schedule with the content that distributes the amount of KRW 22,000,000 to the Defendant, who is the lessee of small claims, in the first order among the amount to be actually distributed on the date of distribution opened on October 30, 2014, and KRW 190,495,046 to the Plaintiff, who is the mortgagee of small claims, in the third order.

E. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the amount of distribution against the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff of the original defendant's primary claim of this case is not the most lessee or the small lessee protected under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

As a preliminary cause of claim, entering into a lease agreement with the defendant on the apartment of this case, which is the only real estate in excess of the debt, which is protected as a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act, is a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditors including the plaintiff, and D's intention to cause harm and the defendant's bad faith.