1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. In order to secure a debt of KRW 110,00,000 against C, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the instant real estate owned by C on December 23, 201, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 132,00,000.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). B.

Since then, C did not pay interest on the above loan obligation, the Plaintiff filed an application for a voluntary auction of real estate concerning the instant real estate with the Incheon District Court B, based on the instant collateral security, and received a voluntary decision to commence auction from the above court on July 25, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). C.

During the auction procedure of this case, the defendant himself paid 24 million won to the court of execution for the real estate of this case from C and claimed that he is the lessee who leased the real estate of this case.

On May 8, 2014, when a court of execution distributes the amount of KRW 77,98,678 to be actually distributed on the date of distribution, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) with the content that distributes the amount of KRW 22,00,00 to the Defendant who applied for a demand for distribution as a small lessee, and the amount of KRW 96,620 to the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, which is the holder of the right to deliver, and KRW 55,902,058 to the Plaintiff as the holder of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

E. Accordingly, on the aforementioned date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the entire amount of distribution to the Defendant, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on May 13, 2014, within one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's entries in Gap's 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's selective assertion is that the defendant concluded a false rental agreement on the real estate of this case in collusion with C in order to receive a small-sum lease deposit under the Housing Lease Protection Act. Thus, it is unlawful that the execution court deemed the defendant as a small-sum lessee and distributed 22 million won to the defendant.