1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 11, 2006, Nonparty A leased (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) real estate (hereinafter “instant apartment”) as indicated in the attached list owned by Nonparty Company from Sungsung Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) with the lease deposit amount of KRW 75,000,000, and the lease period of KRW 12 months (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On September 12, 2006, the above A paid the above lease deposit to the non-party company. On the same day, the moving-in report to the apartment of this case was completed at the same time with the non-party B, who is the spouse of de facto marriage, and continued to reside in the apartment of this case after obtaining a fixed date. On June 25, 2008, the above A made a moving-in report to the non-party company of this case on June 16, 2009, and again made a moving-in report to the apartment of this case on February 16, 2009.

C. On the other hand, on May 27, 2008, the defendant entered into a mortgage agreement with the non-party company with a maximum debt amount of KRW 120,000,000 regarding the apartment of this case, and completed the establishment registration of the mortgage in the name of the defendant on the same day. Around December 2009, the defendant filed an application for voluntary auction against the apartment of this case with D of this court.

The above A did not report a right or demand a distribution in the above real estate auction procedure, and the Plaintiff awarded a successful bid for the apartment of this case and paid the successful bid price on August 13, 2010.

E. On August 13, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for a real estate transfer order against the above B with this court E and received the acceptance of the decision on August 18, 201, but the above B filed an immediate appeal and a suspension of compulsory execution against the above extradition order on the grounds that it is the lessee with opposing power, and the execution of the above delivery order was eventually suspended.

F. On November 18, 2010, the Plaintiff submitted to this court an application seeking reduction of the successful bid price on the premise that the Plaintiff is a lessee with opposing power.

G. The Plaintiff is a lessee with no opposing power on October 4, 2010 after the application for the order to deliver the said real estate was withdrawn.