1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against Defendant E shall be revoked;

2. The F Real Estate Auction in the Incheon District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. In order to secure loan claims against G, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (joint mortgage, hereinafter “instant mortgage”) with respect to H building 201, 301, 401, 501, 601, and 701 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”) owned by G on July 13, 2012, the maximum debt amount of KRW 150 million was KRW 150 million.

B. On May 15, 2013, upon the application for voluntary auction by the Korea-Japan Credit Union (hereinafter “Korea-Japan Credit Union”), which is the right to collateral security of each of the instant real estate, the voluntary auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) began with F of the Incheon District Court regarding each of the instant real estate.

C. As to each of the instant real estate during the instant auction procedure, Defendant B filed a report on the right and demand for distribution by asserting that it is a lessee under subparagraph 201, and Defendant E was a lessee under subparagraph 601.

On September 24, 2014, this Court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) with the content that distributes the amount of KRW 22 million to the Defendants, who demanded a distribution as a small lessee from the date of distribution on the date of distribution, in one order, respectively.

E. On September 29, 2014, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the entire amount of distribution to the Defendants on the date of distribution, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on September 29, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 and 5 evidence (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the primary claim (the claim against the defendant as to a demurrer against the distribution)

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) and the following circumstances, the Defendants merely become the most lessee, and thus, each lease agreement between G and the Defendants is null and void. Therefore, the dividend distributed to the Defendants ought to be deleted.

① At the time when the Defendants entered into a lease agreement, each leased object was not completed and could not be occupied by the Corporation.

(2)