1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 6, 2011, the Plaintiff extended a loan of KRW 65 million to D and completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the instant apartment, which is owned by D, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 84.5 million.

B. On August 18, 2014, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with D and the instant apartment (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”) with the terms and conditions that deposit KRW 30 million, monthly rent KRW 200,000,000, and the period from September 27, 2014 to September 26, 2016, to lease the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

On September 29, 2014, the Defendant obtained a fixed date from the instant lease agreement, and completed the move-in report on the instant apartment and resided in the said apartment.

C. On December 16, 2014, with respect to the instant apartment upon the Plaintiff’s application, an auction procedure was commenced for exercising the security right as Sungwon District Court Sung-nam Branch B on the instant apartment.

In the above auction procedure, on August 13, 2015, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”) under which each of the dividends of KRW 59,662,843 was distributed to the Defendant, who is the lessee of small claims, in the order of 10 million, and the Plaintiff, in the order of 3rd priority.

The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against KRW 11,086,962, out of the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on August 20, 2015, within one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 6, 7 evidence, Eul 5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. (1) The plaintiff asserts to the purport that it is unreasonable for the execution court to distribute the amount to the defendant, since the contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, even if the defendant is the most lessee who entered into a lease agreement to abuse the Housing Lease Protection Act or is not so.

(2) The Defendant asserts to the effect that he is the genuine lessee who entered into the instant lease agreement and actually resided therein after paying the deposit, and that he is a bona fide beneficiary.

B. The defendant