1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 30, 2012, Nonparty C obtained a loan of KRW 222,00,000 from the Plaintiff with respect to D Apartment Nos. 103 and 1101 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Plaintiff, and set up a collateral security amount of KRW 266,40,000 as a security.

B. On the other hand, on November 15, 2012, the aforementioned C entered into a lease contract with the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 30,00,000,000 per month, KRW 300,00 per month, and period of lease from November 26, 2012 to November 25, 2014, and the Defendant filed a move-in report on the said real estate and received a fixed date on March 8, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an application for commencement of voluntary auction with the High Government District Court Goyang Branch B, and on February 27, 2014, the auction procedure was conducted in accordance with the decision.

On January 28, 2015, the above court prepared a distribution schedule with the purport that the Defendant distributes the remaining KRW 14,000,000 to the Plaintiff out of the amount to be distributed, and that the Plaintiff distributes the remaining KRW 157,80,497 to the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the whole amount of the plaintiff's dividends.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is the most lessee to receive the right of priority repayment under the Housing Lease Protection Act by entering into a lease agreement in collusion with a lessor, and thus, the distribution schedule of this case, which distributed small amount of deposit to the plaintiff, is unfair, and that the amount distributed to the plaintiff should be distributed to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the real estate of this case is the genuine lessee who entered into a lease contract for residential purpose and paid all the deposits.

3. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 24 and the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant shall enter into a lease agreement with Eul.