1. On the basis of the primary claim, this Court shall have jurisdiction over the voluntary auction case of B real estate in this Court.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5:

On November 22, 2010, the Plaintiff leased KRW 66 million to C, and was set up a right to collateral security with respect to the real estate indicated in the attached list owned by it (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 86 million, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, the Plaintiff, and the debtor C.

B. On November 22, 2010, the apartment of the instant case: (a) registered the establishment of a new bank, the new bank, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, the maximum debt amount of which was KRW 396,00,000, and the debtor C on November 22, 2010; and (b) on June 2014, the new bank, the new bank, the obligor of which filed an application for voluntary auction of real estate under B with the court

5. Voluntary auction procedure was initiated, and the apartment of this case was sold to D on November 12 of the same year.

C. On August 14, 2014, the Defendant concluded a lease contract with C as of October 24, 2013 with the said executing court as of October 24, 2013, and entered into a lease contract with the term of November 2, 2015, and made a report on the right and demand for distribution.

On December 29, 2014, the above court of execution prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 22 million to the Defendant, who is a small lessee on the date of distribution, among KRW 351,983,665, the amount to be actually distributed on the date of distribution, KRW 22 million, KRW 959,410, and KRW 329,024,255 to the U.S. limited company specialized in the distribution of the above mortgage claim from the new bank, which is the holder of the second priority, in the second priority, and KRW 329,024,255.

E. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the entire amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim is that the defendant entered into a lease agreement subject to protection of the Housing Lease Protection Act for an improper purpose, and thus the defendant's dividends to the defendant.