1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Basic Facts

On October 28, 2011, with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the Plaintiff loaned KRW 114,400,000 to C on October 31, 201, which was due for repayment of KRW 85,00,000, after completing the registration of creation of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 114,40,000.

As the Plaintiff did not repay the above loans, the Plaintiff filed an application for a voluntary auction of real estate on June 12, 2013 for the instant real estate to the Daejeon District Court B, and the auction procedure was commenced on June 12, 2013.

On April 17, 2014, the aforementioned court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) that distributes the amount of 68,563,372 out of KRW 105,292,950 to the Defendant as a small lessee, KRW 118,640 to the person having the right to deliver (the pertinent tax) to the Dong-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City, Daejeon, the Plaintiff as a mortgagee and a creditor of the right to collateral security, and to the Plaintiff as a creditor of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection to the total amount of the Defendant’s dividends, and filed the instant lawsuit on April 23, 2014, which was seven days thereafter.

[Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the main purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff asserted that since the plaintiff is the most lessee who entered into a false rental agreement with Eul, the plaintiff should correct the amount of KRW 19,00,00 distributed to the defendant as KRW 0,00, and the amount of KRW 68,563,372 paid to the plaintiff as KRW 87,563,372, and the amount of dividends to the plaintiff as KRW 87,563,372, respectively, and that the defendant is a legitimate lessee.

Judgment

We examine whether the defendant is the most lessee or not, and whether the lease agreement entered into between the defendant and C is the most lessee.

In light of the following facts, it is insufficient to recognize that a lease agreement entered into between the Defendant and C is a false lease agreement only with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, in view of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 13 and the purport of the entire pleadings.