The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Eth 3rd floor F (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. In the procedure of the auction for the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), which was commenced upon the application of the G Union, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, from 94,482,85 won to be actually distributed on February 20, 2020, the above court set up a distribution schedule with a content that distributes the amount of KRW 16,430,00 to the Defendant, the applicant for the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) who is the priority lessee, in the second order, KRW 125,450, and KRW 72,398,969, and KRW 5,528,466 to the G Association, the applicant creditor, in the second order, in the third order.

C. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit within one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and determination that the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from the Defendant and agreed to take over the Defendant’s obligation to the G Union, which is the mortgagee of the right to collateral security. The Defendant did not explain differently the maturity of the said obligation to the Plaintiff and did not implement the procedure for succession to the said obligation, and the Plaintiff incurred damages exceeding KRW 20,000,00 as the instant auction procedure commenced and won was awarded at a lower price than the market price, and thus, the instant dividend table distributed to the Defendant

On the other hand, in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, only if there are substantial grounds for objection as to the existence, scope, and priority of the obligee’s claims that have been distributed. Such grounds asserted by the Plaintiff are the top priority small lessee, and it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s claim as the grounds for objection against the Defendant, and even if so, the claim against the Defendant for damages arising from illegal acts against the Defendant is automatic.