1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From December 6, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement on the lease agreement with a deposit deposit of KRW 30 million (2 million in intermediate payment of KRW 10 million in the remainder of KRW 18 million in the contract amount) on the second floor among the multiple-story apartments in the instant case. On January 20, 2015, the Defendant again entered into a lease agreement with a deposit of KRW 60 million (30 million in the contract amount of KRW 30 million in the remainder of the contract amount and KRW 30 million in the remainder of the contract amount).

B. On September 7, 2016, regarding the instant multi-story apartment, the Seoul Western District Court C, and D (Dupl) voluntarily auction case of real estate, the said court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that the Defendant as the first-class lessee of small amount of dividends of KRW 20 million and the amount of dividends of KRW 593,830,407 to the Plaintiff as the fourth-class mortgagee (applicant creditor) as the fourth-class mortgagee (applicant creditor).

【Fact that does not have any dispute】

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that each lease agreement that the Defendant entered into with B on December 6, 2012 and January 21, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1448, Jan. 20, 2015) should be excluded from dividends as the most lessee who conspired with B in order to receive dividends, even though the Defendant did not actually rent the du-type apartment complex of this case. The Plaintiff asserts that each of the above lease agreements was concluded with the Defendant under the status of excess of debt B, and thus, the Defendant’s bad faith should be revoked as a fraudulent act

B. First of all, the Defendant’s assertion that he is the most lessee is the health unit, evidence No. 2-2, evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 1-4, and witness E’s testimony, the Defendant’s entire purport of pleading is sufficiently recognized as having leased and resided from B on January 20, 2015. Thus, the above assertion is groundless.

Next, with regard to the Defendant’s assertion that the above lease agreement is a fraudulent act, the market price of the du-type apartment in the instant case is the value appraised as of November 18, 2015 according to the evidence No. 4.