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

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

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the plaintiff is the person holding the right to a provisional seizure (25,00,000 won and interest 10% per annum and 25% per annum per annum) with respect to non-party H as a result of the provisional seizure order issued by the court 2015Kadan506921, and the provisional seizure registration was completed (the amount of claims 25,00,000 won, interest 15, May 15, 2015, interest 10, interest 10% per annum, delay damages rate per annum). The defendant Eul, C, and D have the priority claim to return small amount of deposit as to the above real estate and the above above above ground leisure and warehouse building (hereinafter referred to as the "building of this case"), and the court of auction, which completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on September 16, 2014, did not fully distribute dividends from the distribution date as stated in the claim and distribution schedule.

2. Determination on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. Defendant B, C, and D alleged by the Plaintiff are the most lessees, and each lease agreement becomes null and void as a false declaration of agreement. Even if it is not so, the obligor’s conclusion of a lease agreement in excess of the obligation should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

Since Defendant E, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, was falsely registered notwithstanding the absence of the secured obligation, the said dividends are inappropriate.

Therefore, within the limit of KRW 32,842,466 of the Plaintiff’s demand for distribution, the distribution schedule should be revised with the amount stated in the purport of the claim, which is the amount divided by the dividend amount of the Defendants.

B. The fact that the judgment lease agreement on the assertion against Defendant B was not prepared, that there was a monetary transaction between the above Defendant and H in addition to the following transactions, and that the above Defendant cannot be seen as being on the ground of the fact that it was impossible to find out whether it was occupied due to the lack of understanding on the current status survey report.