1. The plaintiff A's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff B and C's claims against the defendants are dismissed, respectively.

3...

1. A creditor who failed to lawfully make a judgment on the main safety defense against the plaintiff Gap's lawsuit does not have the right to attend the date of distribution on the date of distribution and to raise an objection under the substantive law on the distribution schedule. Thus, even if such a person appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the distribution schedule, he/she is not in an unlawful objection, and he/she does not have the standing to sue in a lawsuit

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da27696, Aug. 22, 2003) A’s evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have filed an application for a legitimate demand for distribution, since the Plaintiff filed an application for a demand for distribution on February 17, 2014, which was after July 29, 2013, for the completion period to demand a distribution of the G real estate auction case with the Go Government District Court G real estate G.

Therefore, the plaintiff A appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the distribution schedule.

Even if this is illegal filing of objection, and there is no standing to sue to file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution against the plaintiff Gap. Thus, the lawsuit of this case against the defendants of the plaintiff A is unlawful as a lawsuit filed by a person who has no standing to sue.

2. As to the claims of Plaintiffs B and C, Plaintiff B and C asserted that since the above Plaintiffs have preferential right to payment as stipulated in the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, the above Plaintiffs’ claim is a creditor with respect to G real estate rental auction case, the above court’s distribution amount of KRW 13,50,000 against the Defendants in the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on October 30, 2014 shall be KRW 0,000, respectively, and the amount of dividends against the above Plaintiffs shall be corrected according to the ratio of claims.

According to the purport of Gap 2, 6, and 7 evidence and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff C may recognize the fact that the plaintiff C filed an application for business registration with respect to the lease contract for a commercial building, which serves as the basis for the demand for distribution in this case, but the registration has been rejected, and the plaintiff B did not obtain a fixed date under Article 5 (2) of

Ultimately, the plaintiff C is entitled to Article 3 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.