1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in full view of Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 6-1 and 6-2, the fact-finding results and the purport of the whole pleadings. A.

On November 14, 2007, the employee D of the Plaintiff made a move-in report to the second floor of the E-Ba in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case"), and started to occupy the real estate of this case.

B. On November 9, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between F and F to lease the instant real estate with a deposit of KRW 35,00,000,00, or with a lease term of KRW 24 months from November 9, 2009 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) and obtained a fixed date on November 27, 2009.

C. G received the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate from F on May 3, 2011.

On April 23, 2013, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage over the instant real estate amounting to KRW 135,000,000, and G, G, the debtor.

E. On September 4, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report for resident registration on the instant real estate.

F. On September 9, 2013, the Busan District Court rendered a decision to commence compulsory sale of the instant real estate (C). On December 21, 2015, on the date of distribution, the distribution schedule was formulated to distribute the remainder of KRW 84,111,20 to the Defendant, who is the mortgagee, the mortgagee, the amount of KRW 19,00,00 as the small amount of deposit with the right to preferential repayment, and the amount of KRW 84,11,202 to the Defendant.

G. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against KRW 16,00,00 among the amount distributed to the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on December 28, 2015, which was seven days or less.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant real estate was indirectly occupied through employees D, and since around 2003, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to use it as an employee accommodation, and thus, the lessor was also aware of such fact. However, the move-in report for the resident registration of D and the instant move-in report.