1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Facts of recognition

On December 2013, the Plaintiff related to the parties lent KRW 35 million to D, and received from D the establishment of the second priority collective security right (the highest amount of claims 45,000,000 won) with respect to the Seo-gu 104 Dong-dong 1302 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

D on December 12, 2009, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with D to rent the instant apartment without any separate monthly rent of KRW 30 million. On December 3, 2009, the Defendant paid KRW 30 million to D on December 3, 2009.

Around December 2009, the defendant moved to the apartment of this case, and on March 26, 2010, he moved to the apartment of this case.

In the auction and distribution of the instant real estate, the right to collateral security (the maximum amount of claims KRW 156 million) was established in the name of the Gwangju Cultural Credit Union in the first order, but the Gwangju Cultural Credit Union filed an application for voluntary auction against the instant apartment with the Gwangju District Court C on March 7, 2014.

The apartment of this case was sold to F on September 24, 2014, and F was paid in full and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 7, 2014.

On December 12, 2014, the Gwangju District Court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”) with the purport to distribute 23,249,416 won to the mortgagee of Gwangju Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, in the second priority order among the amount to be actually distributed on the date of distribution on the date of distribution according to the above sale, 176,215,507, and 177,180,000 won, and 177,188,911 won, and 133,78,911 to the mortgagee of Gwangju Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City, in the third priority order.

On December 12, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s claim is false on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against the instant distribution schedule.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the following facts: Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as the tenant, did not obtain a fixed date in the lease contract.