1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On September 12, 2012, the Plaintiff leased Nos. 304 and 305 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) of the F apartment building Nos. 304 and 305 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) located in E from Defendant B, the Plaintiff leased the lease deposit of KRW 15,000,000 and the rent of KRW 50,000 per month.

B. Since then, the procedure for the auction of real estate rent was commenced as the District Court D with regard to the instant commercial building. On July 18, 2014, the said auction court did not recognize the Plaintiff’s lien and distributed only KRW 5,500,000 to the Plaintiff as a small commercial lessee, instead of recognizing the Plaintiff’s lien on July 18, 2014 on the date of distribution. Defendant C, as a general creditor, KRW 11,432,874 as well as the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security, and Defendant B, as an owner holding concurrent office as the debtor and as an owner of the debt, prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

C. However, the Plaintiff heard that the commercial building of this case can be used for more than 10 years from Defendant B, and invested KRW 52,154,50 in the commercial building of this case, thereby raising the value of the commercial building of this case. Although the Plaintiff had a lien of the above KRW 52,154,50 as the secured claim, the auction court excluded the lien, it was erroneous for Defendant C and Defendant B to draw up the instant dividend table to distribute the amount of KRW 11,432,874, and KRW 9,012,421 as above to Defendant C and Defendant B, so the instant dividend table of this case should be corrected as stated in the purport of the claim.

2. In light of the judgment, even if the lien exists with respect to the commercial building of this case, as alleged by the plaintiff, the lien holder only has the right to refuse the delivery to the person who occupies the object of custody or who seeks the transfer of possession until the secured claim is repaid, and the lien holder cannot participate in the auction procedure as the secured claim, and shall not be paid preferentially to other creditors. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.