1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, who is a mortgagee, filed an application with regard to the size of 69.29 square meters (hereinafter “instant housing”), such as cement structure, brick structure, and branch-story housing, etc. on the ground of the Incheon Bupyeong-gu D-gu, Incheon, which was owned by C, on the ground that the decision to voluntarily commence the auction was made to the court B, and the auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

B. In the instant auction procedure, E, the Defendant’s type of the instant housing, claimed that he/she leased part of the instant housing as KRW 30 million on February 24, 2010, with the term of 20 months from March 10, 2010, and the term of lease. The Defendant himself/herself claimed that he/she leased part of the instant housing as KRW 20 million on February 24, 2010, with the term of 20 million from March 10, 2010, and 20 months from March 10, 2010. The Defendant reported each right and demanded each distribution.

C. On February 26, 2014, the date of distribution, E, the Defendant: (a) 20,000 won for each of the first-order tenants; and (b) the Plaintiff, the third-order mortgagee, 92,764,615 won for each of the dividends of KRW 92,615 (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”); (c) The Plaintiff appeared on the said date of distribution and made a statement of objection to the distribution on the whole of the Defendant’s dividends; and (d) filed a lawsuit of objection to the instant distribution on March 3, 2014 for up to one week thereafter.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 8 (Evidence A 2 and 6 shall include each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion E merely leased the entire house of this case from C, and the Defendant did not have leased the above house. However, the Defendant conspired with E to obtain a small amount of deposit under the Housing Lease Protection Act with C respectively for the purpose of double payment of deposit.

Ultimately, since the defendant is the most lessee and is not a small lessee, the distribution schedule of this case should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. Prior to the fact of finding the judgment 1.