1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. On April 27, 2012, Seoul Mutual Savings Bank leased KRW 150 million to C, and completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with respect to the Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, 208, 1503, 1503 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by C with the maximum debt amount of KRW 195 million.

B. Seoul Mutual Savings Bank was declared bankrupt on September 26, 2013 by Seoul Central District Court 2013Hahap139, and the Plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy.

C. On December 28, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C to lease the entire apartment complex of this case from January 6, 2014 to January 5, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and completed the move-in report on December 31, 2013.

On May 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed for an auction of real estate rent based on the instant collateral security with Suwon District Court B, and the auction procedure was commenced on May 20, 2014.

E. On January 6, 2015, the said court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) with the content that distributes each of the amount of KRW 168,271,233 to be actually distributed on the date of open distribution to the Defendant, who is the lessee of small claims, in the first order, and KRW 2,00,000 to the Defendant, who is the applicant obligee, in the third order, and KRW 145,023,233 to the Plaintiff, the applicant obligee.

F. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the entire amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 9, 12, 13, Gap evidence 8-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's primary assertion is that the defendant is the most lessee who is unable to obtain protection under the Housing Lease Protection Act that entered into a false lease agreement with respect to the apartment of this case without actually residing in the apartment of this case, and as a preliminary lessee, the defendant is in excess of the debt of this case.