1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts recognized;

A. On February 24, 2012, the Defendant leased money to C, and received a right to collateral security against the second floor No. 201 (hereinafter “instant building”) located in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, which was owned by C as a collateral for that right, from the maximum debt amount of 135,60,000 won.

B. On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with a licensed real estate agent E, which provides a deposit amount of KRW 22 million for the instant building and two years from March 31, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and completed a move-in report on March 26, 2013.

C. On July 24, 2013, upon the Defendant’s application, the voluntary auction procedure was initiated regarding the instant building to Incheon District Court B, and the said court, in order to July 23, 2014, prepared a distribution schedule that distributes KRW 99,394,810 to the Defendant, a mortgagee, who is the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). D.

When the Plaintiff reported the right to claim the return of the lease deposit of this case and excluded it from the distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the amount of KRW 19 million out of the dividend amount against the Defendant on the distribution date, and filed the instant lawsuit on July 29, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-1 to 7, 3-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts that the distribution schedule of this case should be revised, as stated in the purport of the claim, because the court of auction is excessive even though the plaintiff is a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and it is improper to exclude the plaintiff from the distribution of dividends.

B. As to the defendant's assertion, the plaintiff is the most lessee or the main purpose of the lease contract of this case was to recover the claim in preference to the right holder with priority. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be protected as the small amount lessee.

3. Determination

(a) Housing Lease Protection Act;