1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. In the auction procedure described in the purport of the claim concerning the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance No. 201 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the Plaintiff asserted as the lessee of the instant real estate, and filed a report on the right and demand for distribution.

On February 25, 2015, the court of execution, on the date of distribution, distributed KRW 163,695,268 to the Defendant Small Public Credit Cooperative, the pledgee of the right to collateral security, and KRW 19,676,237, respectively, to the PPS Korea Co., Ltd., the right to collateral security, and prepared a distribution schedule that was not distributed to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is a small lessee of the instant real estate, and stated an objection against the total amount of dividends to the PPS Korea Co., Ltd. and the amount of dividends to the Defendant Small Credit Cooperative, which was the pledgee of the right to collateral security, and filed the instant lawsuit on March 2, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. On August 28, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant real estate was a small lessee of the instant real estate, as the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate by setting the deposit amount of KRW 30 million and the lease term of KRW 1,00,000,000, and resided after the move-in report was completed as the instant real estate on September 3, 2013.

B. Examining the evidence No. 2 and evidence No. 3-2, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Stalking Fisheries Partnership, which was the owner of the instant real estate at the time of August 23, 2013, setting the deposit amount of KRW 30 million and the term of lease from August 28, 2013 to August 27, 2014, and completed the move-in report as of September 4, 2013.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge whether the Plaintiff paid the security deposit under the above lease agreement at the time.

Rather, in light of the purport of entry and pleading in Eul evidence No. 1, 1, salking fishery partnership corporation against the plaintiff.