1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 2010, C entered into a mortgage agreement with the Plaintiff on the 7th apartment No. 707 of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and concluded a mortgage agreement with the Plaintiff on July 1, 2010, pursuant to the Seoul Central District Court’s registration No. 41299, the maximum debt amount was KRW 598 billion with the Plaintiff.

B. On November 10, 201, C entered into a lease contract with the Defendant for one room among the instant apartment units with a deposit of KRW 30 million and the lease period from November 20, 201 to November 20, 201, and the Defendant obtained a fixed date upon filing a move-in report on December 5, 201.

C. On July 13, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for the auction of real estate rent with the Seoul Central District Court B regarding the instant apartment based on the foregoing right to collateral security.

Accordingly, the decision on the voluntary commencement of auction was made on July 16, 2012, and the auction procedure was in progress.

On September 24, 2012, the defendant filed a report on the right and demand for distribution with the court of execution by asserting that he/she is the lessee who leased one square column from C to KRW 30 million among the apartment of this case.

E. On April 5, 2013, a court of execution prepared a distribution schedule to distribute the amount of KRW 365,086,31, which is to be actually distributed, to the Defendant, KRW 25 million under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act; KRW 790,160; and KRW 339,296,171, which is to be distributed to the Plaintiff, the mortgagee; and KRW 339,296,171, which is to be distributed to the Plaintiff, the mortgagee (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

F. On April 5, 2013, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution held on April 14:00, and raised an objection against the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and thereafter filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on April 11, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is the small-sum lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act without the actual intention of lease contract.