1. On April 17, 2013, between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and B, the Seoul Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City C Apartment No. 105, 1210.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed to be combined.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

On July 3, 2009, the Defendant registered the establishment of a mortgage (the creation of a mortgage of this case hereinafter referred to as the "mortgage") with respect to C Apartment Nos. 105,1210 (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case"), which is owned by the Defendant, as the Defendant, on July 3, 2009, with respect to the establishment of a mortgage of this case, which is the maximum debt amount of KRW 351 million and the maximum debt amount of KRW 78,00,000,000.

B. On July 29, 2013, the Defendant applied for the commencement of voluntary auction on the instant real estate as a mortgagee, and the Seoul Central District Court D voluntarily decided to commence auction on July 29, 2013, and on the 31st of the same month, the said decision to commence voluntary auction was registered.

C. In the above auction procedure, the Plaintiff claimed as a small lessee and demanded distribution, but the above court, except for the Plaintiff’s dividend, drafted a distribution schedule with the content that distributes KRW 298,644,174 to the Defendant, who is a mortgagee, in the first priority order (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). D.

The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection to the distribution of KRW 20 million among the amount distributed by the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on April 8, 2014.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the Plaintiff should be paid 20 million won out of the deposit for lease. Thus, the instant distribution schedule should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. Defendant’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion is merely the most lessee, and the instant distribution schedule, except the Plaintiff’s dividends, is justifiable.

(2) Even if the Plaintiff is not the most lessee, the lease agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and B constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditor of B, and thus, seeks revocation as a counterclaim.

3. Determination

A. Whether the Plaintiff is the most lessee.