1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. On the ancillary claim that the Plaintiff added to this Court:

(a) D and Defendant .

1. The judgment on the plaintiff's primary claim - The reasons for the second 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: "30,00 won per month" in the second 9 of the judgment of first ; "the second 14 of the judgment of the court of first ; "the distribution schedule" in the second 14 of the judgment of the court of second ; "the second 20 of the distribution schedule (hereinafter "the distribution schedule of this case") was paid"; and "the third 20 of the third 20" were added. Further, "In addition, the defendant paid KRW 574,150 of the gas fee and KRW 1,713,210 of the apartment management fee, etc. on November 2, 2015; and it is identical with the reasons for the judgment of the court of first ; therefore, this shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion argues that even though the defendant is not the most lessee, the act that set up the right of priority repayment of small-sum deposit under the Housing Lease Protection Act (the act of entering into the lease contract in this case with the defendant) to the defendant with respect to the apartment in this case, which is the only property in excess of the debt, constitutes a fraudulent act, the plaintiff's revocation as the creditor against D, and accordingly, the amount of dividend against the defendant based on the lease contract in this case which is null and void should be deleted in full

B. Determination 1) According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 7, the Plaintiff granted a loan of KRW 100,000 to C on December 24, 2012, prior to the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, to which D had been the representative director, and as of the same day D provided a joint guarantee, it is recognized that C’s above loan obligation of C was 123,65,22 won at the time of the preparation of the instant distribution schedule. Thus, the Plaintiff has a joint and several liability claim against D, and the said joint and several liability claim is the preserved claim seeking the revocation of the instant lease agreement. 2) The establishment of fraudulent act is stipulated in Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act.