1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition are recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 3, or there is no dispute between the parties.

A. On November 1, 2013, the Defendant leased Gyeyang-gu Incheon apartment 401 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from D to December 4, 2015 by setting the lease deposit of KRW 22 million and the lease period from December 5, 2013 to December 4, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). B.

On August 26, 2014, the Incheon District Court C real estate auction procedure for the apartment of this case was in progress, and on August 26, 2014, the said court drafted a distribution schedule with the content that the Plaintiff distributes KRW 10,465,119 to the Defendant, and KRW 22 million to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

2. Determination

A. The lessor of the instant apartment, a debtor against the Plaintiff, entered into the instant contract with the Defendant while in excess of his/her debt. Since the lease deposit of the instant apartment was KRW 70 million, the Defendant paid the lease deposit of KRW 22 million, which was considerably low compared to the market price, the instant contract is a fraudulent act. The Defendant committed a fraudulent act with D, or entered into the instant contract with the knowledge of the fraudulent act. As such, the instant distribution schedule should be revised to delete KRW 15,294,731, out of the amount of dividends against the Defendant, and distribute it to the Plaintiff.

B. In light of the judgment, where an obligor performs a juristic act aimed at a property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee, the obligee can only file a lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act with the court, and cannot be asserted as a means of attack and defense in the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da8393, Jul. 25, 1995). The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without further review.

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is reasonable.