1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts recognized;

A. On December 19, 201, the Plaintiff, while lending KRW 140 million to C, was set up a collateral security right of KRW 182 million with respect to the instant building, which was owned by C as security (hereinafter “instant collateral security right”).

B. On August 27, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease contract between KRW 25.5 million for the instant building and the period from August 31, 2013 to August 30, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and completed the move-in report on August 27, 2013.

C. After paying interest on the above loan to the Plaintiff until August 18, 2013, C delayed payment of interest. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction to the Incheon District Court B based on the instant collateral security, and the procedure for the voluntary auction of real estate was commenced on February 12, 2014.

In the above auction procedure, the Defendant reported the right to claim the return of deposit under the instant lease agreement and made a demand for distribution. On August 21, 2014, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule stating that the Defendant, who is the lessee of small claims, distributes the amount of KRW 2,00,000 and KRW 106,922,177 to the Plaintiff, who is the mortgagee of small claims, in the second order (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

E. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution of the instant case, and raised an objection to the full amount of the Defendant’s dividend, and filed the instant lawsuit on August 28, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the most lessee, and thus, the instant lease agreement is null and void or the conclusion of the instant lease agreement with the Defendant on the instant building, which is the only property of C in excess of debt, constitutes a fraudulent act.

Therefore, the dividend table of this case should be corrected to delete the dividend amount to the defendant and distribute the dividend amount to the plaintiff.