1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

On March 22, 2013, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 336,00,000 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).

On September 17, 2014, at the Defendant’s request, the auction of real estate was commenced as Busan District Court Branch B, Dong Branch of the District Court.

In the auction procedure of this case, the Plaintiff asserted that he is a lessee with respect to the instant real estate, and filed a report on the right and demand for distribution.

On the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure implemented on April 16, 2015, the said court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that distributes KRW 236,085,913 to the Defendant and excludes the Plaintiff from the distribution of dividends.

On the date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection against KRW 34,00,000 out of the amount of distribution to the Defendant.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, the argument of the purport of the entire pleadings, and the plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff is the genuine tenant who leased the building of this case, the plaintiff should distribute KRW 19,00,000 to the plaintiff as the tenant of small amount.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap's statement Nos. 1-1 and 2, the plaintiff and non-party C, who was the owner of the building of this case, made a lease contract of KRW 34,00,000 for the building of this case as of June 7, 2013, and the plaintiff, on August 12, 2014, although it is recognized that the plaintiff obtained a fixed date of the lease contract from Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch Branch of Sung-nam Branch of Gwangju Branch of the Seoul Branch, he/she is aware of the following facts or circumstances, namely, that the non-party C, the lessor, is between the plaintiff and the South branch, and that the lease deposit of this case was very low in light of the market price of the building of this case. The plaintiff's statement to the non-party C contains the number No. 200,000,000 on June 7, 2013 and the number No. 2500, Jul. 24, 2013.