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

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

1. On February 24, 2014, the lower court prepared a distribution schedule with respect to the distribution of KRW 30,000,000 and KRW 2,591,971 in the Republic of Korea and excluded the Plaintiff, who made a demand for distribution as a housing lessee, from the distribution of the dividends.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 8 and 9 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion and the judgment thereon are as follows: (a) on March 12, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the said apartment from the said apartment owner B to KRW 26,00,000, and was in fact residing therein, and thus subject to protection as a small lessee; (b) even though the lessee had to have received dividends of KRW 22,00,000 out of the above lease deposit in preference to other creditors, it was excluded from dividends despite having to have received dividends; (c) as such, the Defendants obtained unjust enrichment of KRW 22,00,000, which the Plaintiff should have received dividends from the Plaintiff without any legal ground; and (d) the Plaintiff has the right to claim unjust enrichment against the Defendants, such

(Defendant Smaman Savings Bank shall seek the confirmation of bankruptcy claims).

As to whether the Plaintiff has the right to preferential payment under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act as the genuine tenant with respect to the apartment of this case, the circumstances revealed by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the above evidence and the statements in Eul 1, 2, Na 1 and 2 (including the provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply). In other words, even though the Plaintiff’s apartment of this case at the time of the lease was the market price of KRW 165,000,000, the limited real right or the real estate registration amount of KRW 198,40,000, the lease deposit may not be refunded.