1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 2, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage agreement with the content of KRW 100 million with the maximum debt amount, KRW 400 million with respect to the E apartment 202, 102, and 102 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by D, and completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on January 9, 2014.

B. On April 24, 2014, at the request of the Korean Agency, which is a collateral security right-holder, the auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) was initiated on April 24, 2014, when the decision to voluntarily commence the auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

C. In the instant auction procedure, the Defendant concluded a lease contract of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 200,000 for the instant apartment, and filed a report on the right and demand for distribution by asserting that it is a lessee who has completed the fixed date and the report on the transfer on February 4, 2014.

On March 20, 2015, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) stating that the Defendant, a lessee of small claims, who is the mortgagee of small claims, distributes the remainder of KRW 27,733,40, and KRW 10,046,186 to the Plaintiff, the mortgagee of small claims, in the order of 256,816,162, whichever is to be actually distributed (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

E. On March 20, 2015, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and stated an objection against the Defendant’s dividend amount, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on March 26, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 4, significant facts in this court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion falls under D and D, the owner of the apartment of this case, and as the most lessee who completed the fixed date and move-in report, it is unreasonable that the defendant received the amount equivalent to the lease deposit.

Therefore, the distribution schedule of this case must be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. The defendant's assertion is a true tenant with respect to the apartment of this case, and thus the amount equivalent to the lease deposit is distributed.