1. On the basis of the primary claim, this Court shall have jurisdiction over the voluntary auction of the immovable property B in this Court.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in light of the whole purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4-1, 2, 3, 5-1, 12-1, 12-2:

On January 11, 2011, the Plaintiff leased KRW 95 million to C, and received the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage with respect to No. 302 of Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant housing”) under its ownership, with respect to the establishment of a mortgage of Gyeyang-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant housing”).

B. On January 2014, the Plaintiff applied for a voluntary auction of real estate concerning the instant housing to B at this court based on the foregoing collateral security, and the instant housing was sold to Daza Co., Ltd on October 29, 201, following the commencement of the voluntary auction procedure on the 16th of the same month.

C. On March 12, 2014, the Defendant filed a report on the right and filed an application for demand for distribution with the content that the instant house was leased and resided in the said executing court in KRW 22 million (hereinafter “instant lease”).

On December 5, 2014, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule with the content of distributing KRW 22 million to the Defendant, who is a lessee of small claims, in the first order of the amount to be actually distributed, 85,515,253, excluding execution expenses, on the date of open distribution on December 5, 2014, and 60,816,403 to the Defendant, who is a mortgagee, in the fourth order.

E. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on December 10, 2014.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's primary cause of claim in this case is as follows.

In the auction procedure of this case, the defendant did not make a demand for distribution by the completion date of the demand for distribution, and the lease contract of this case is a false lease contract, or is concluded for the purpose of acquiring unjust profits by abusing the protection system of small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act.