1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On June 2011, 2014, the case of the voluntary auction of real estate D with the Incheon District Court Branch of the District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 29, 2011, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 46 million to B, and as a security, registered the creation of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 59,80,000,000 to the Won-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City C Apartment 124, 804 (hereinafter “instant housing”).

B. On June 27, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract for the lease of the instant house with a deposit of KRW 28 million and the lease period of KRW 10,00,000 from July 10 to July 9, 2015 (hereinafter “instant contract”). On July 2, 2013, the Defendant made a move-in report on the instant house and obtained a fixed date in the lease contract.

C. Meanwhile, on July 26, 2013, the Defendant’s children, E, their wife, and children (hereinafter “E family”) filed a move-in report with the Defendant F, the location of a private teaching institute operated by E, and filed a move-in report with the Defendant on the instant housing on December 26, 2013.

On November 21, 2013, the Incheon District Court rendered a decision to commence the sale of real estate and the registration thereof was made as to the instant housing as Incheon District Court Branch D on November 21, 2013. On June 20, 2014, the said court drafted a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 22,00,000 to the Defendant, and KRW 27,953,646 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant did not have to move to the Do governor-si, Gyeonggi-do, the location of the instant house, in the Jeonbuk-si, the former residence, and actually did not reside in the instant house, and the family members of E, who lived with the Defendant, resided together with the Defendant, filed a move-in report after the decision to voluntarily commence the instant house was issued.

In addition, it is doubtful whether the lease deposit of the house of this case is excessively high compared to the market price, and whether the defendant actually paid the lease deposit.

In light of the above various questions, the defendant is the most lessee or the smallest lessee.