The plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed.

On February 13, 2012, the real estate recorded in the separate sheet between the defendant and B is indicated in the separate sheet.

Facts of recognition

On May 23, 2013, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by B (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the auction procedure was initiated to C at the request of the Plaintiff, a mortgagee, on May 23, 2013

(2) On February 13, 2012, the Defendant claimed that the instant real estate was leased at KRW 18,000,000 as the lease deposit (hereinafter “instant auction”) and filed an application for distribution demand (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

On the date of distribution conducted on February 4, 2014, the said auction court: (a) recognized the Defendant as a lessee of small claims having priority repayment right; (b) distributed KRW 12,00,000 to the Plaintiff; and (c) drafted a distribution schedule to distribute KRW 248,598,115 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

On February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff raised the instant lawsuit on February 10, 2014, against the entire amount of dividends to the Defendant on the date of distribution.

[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff asserts that the defendant pretended to make a small tenant for the purpose of receiving dividends in consideration of the auction of this case, although there is no evidence to prove that the source of the lease deposit of this case was related to B, and that there is no evidence to prove that the source was related to B, and that the defendant completed the resident card of this case and paid management expenses, each of the items of evidence Nos. 4 through 11 alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant is the largest tenant, and there is no other evidence to prove that the claim of this part is not reasonable.

The instant real estate was the only property of B as of February 13, 2012, with no dispute over the determination of the cause of the conjunctive claim, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 10, and 11.