1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on August 4, 2014 in the Incheon District Court B real estate auction case B, the defendant is against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 17, 2013, with respect to the instant housing owned by C, the auction procedure (Jincheon District Court Branch B) commenced on December 17, 2013.

The Plaintiff, as a mortgagee of a maximum debt amount of KRW 156,00,000, demanded the distribution of KRW 138,546,588 (= Principal KRW 120,00,000,000) as the mortgagee of a right to collateral security, and the Defendant made a demand for distribution of KRW 30,000,000 as the lessee.

The Plaintiff’s right to collateral security was established on January 14, 201. On April 27, 2013, the Defendant filed a report on the right and demand for distribution with the effect that “C and a deposit of KRW 30 million (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) were concluded, and the Plaintiff received the house on May 24, 2013, and received the move-in report on resident registration on August 1, 2013, and received the fixed date on August 2, 2013.”

B. On August 4, 2014, a court of execution recognized the Defendant as a lessee of small claims under the Housing Lease Protection Act and set up a distribution schedule with the content that distributes KRW 22,00,000 to the Defendant, and distributes KRW 106,290,170 to the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection to the total amount of dividends against the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-3 evidence, Gap 14 evidence

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① the Defendant is the most lessee.

The defendant is not the actual lessee of the case, but the operator of the hospital working for the defendant, leased the house of this case for the employees' house, so the defendant cannot be protected as a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

2. The instant lease agreement shall be revoked as a fraudulent act.

B. Defendant’s assertion (1) is the genuine lessee who leased the instant house by lending money from the hospital operator at the workplace.

(2) The instant lease agreement does not constitute a fraudulent act, and the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the lease agreement exceeded the lessor’s obligations at the time of

3. Determination

A. Evidence Nos. 2, 4, 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.