1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 9, 2011, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 110 million to C, and completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

Based on the foregoing right to collateral security, the Plaintiff filed an application for a voluntary auction of real estate with the Incheon District Court B, and the above court rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction on June 10, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). B.

On March 20, 2011, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement between C and C with respect to the instant real estate with a lease deposit of KRW 20 million, term of lease from April 20, 201 to April 19, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

The instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed until the instant auction procedure.

C. On March 7, 2017, on the date of distribution implemented on the instant auction procedure, the said court prepared a distribution schedule in order of KRW 20 million to the Defendant, the lessee of small claims, among KRW 90,737,546, which was the amount to be actually distributed, and that of KRW 69,942,616, which was the applicant creditor and the mortgagee, distributed to the Plaintiff, who was the applicant creditor and the mortgagee.

On March 3, 2017, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the Defendant’s dividend amount of KRW 20 million, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on March 3, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8 (including each number for additional evidence), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant is the most dependent of D in a de facto marital relationship with C, and the lease contract of this case is based on the false indication of conspiracy between C and the defendant.

Therefore, it is not permissible for the defendant to exercise the right to preferential payment as a small lessee.

Ultimately, the distribution schedule of this case should be revised to distribute to the Plaintiff the dividend amount of KRW 20 million against the Defendant, such as the purport of the claim.

B. Determination A.