1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 14, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty C on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 130,000,00 with respect to 501-dong 1003 apartment units (hereinafter “the instant apartment units”) owned by Nonparty C (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) and entered into the move-in report and the aforementioned lease agreement on May 28, 2013, with the fixed date fixed, and the lessee resided therein. The Defendant is a creditor who applied for the auction of real estate rent to the Government District Court B as a mortgagee for the said apartment units.

B. On August 20, 2014, the auction court of the instant case recognized the Defendant as the obligee of KRW 90,000,000, interest of KRW 13,767,595, out of the amount to be distributed to the Defendant, and set up a distribution schedule that distributes KRW 90,00,000, the maximum debt amount to the Defendant, and distributes KRW 111,382,357 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

C. The Plaintiff raised an objection against the Defendant’s dividend on the date of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Although the Defendant’s secured claim on the instant apartment should be limited to KRW 70,000,000 that the Defendant loaned to C on February 17, 2011, and damages for delay thereof, the Defendant’s secured claim on the instant apartment should be limited to KRW 70,000,00 and damages for delay. However, inasmuch as the Defendant’s secured claim on February 17, 201, included the amount of KRW 20,000,00 that was loaned to C as well as damages for delay, and the distribution schedule as above was prepared based on the demand for distribution, the instant distribution schedule is unfair, and the distribution schedule should be revised as stated in

B. According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the Defendant: (a) had a maximum debt amount of KRW 212,400,000 between C and C on February 16, 2011; and (b) had a limited collateral contract between the obligor and the obligee regarding the scope of the secured debt as “any of the obligations currently and future due to the transaction of deed lending to the obligee,” and accordingly, the Defendant has concluded such limited collateral contract.