1. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleading in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 7, 9, 10, and 11:

D In this Court C real estate auction case (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) commenced on September 25, 2013 upon the application of a mortgagee’s session of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul and its ground buildings, Dongdaemun-gu Seoul and its subsidiaries, the court issued a lessee’s notice to F and its householder on January 17, 2013, which appears to have been transferred to the said real estate on January 17, 2013 as a result of the survey on the current status of real estate, and directly received it on October 14, 2013.

B. However, only on January 9, 2014, with the lapse of December 5, 2013, which was the completion period to demand a distribution, the Plaintiff reported the right to lease deposit amounting to KRW 36 million and made a demand for distribution.

C. On August 21, 2014, this Court set up a distribution schedule of KRW 64,528,636 and KRW 25 million to the Defendant on the date of distribution, respectively, and prepared a distribution schedule of KRW 20,94,390, and KRW 11,05,610 out of the dividend amount of the Defendant’s dividend amount of the said distribution schedule and KRW 20,994,390 among the dividend amount of G.

2. ex officio, examining the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case, the person who is qualified to sue a distribution of this case, was present on the date of distribution on the date of distribution and raised an objection on the date of distribution, and the creditor or the debtor. In order for the creditor to appear on the date of distribution to raise an objection on the date of distribution and make an objection on the date of distribution, the creditor against the enforcement obligor under the substantive law is insufficient, and the legitimate demand for distribution has been made by the deadline for the completion of the demand for distribution. The creditor who did not lawfully demand for distribution did not have the authority to raise an objection on the distribution schedule, and even if such creditor was present on the date of distribution and raised an objection on the distribution schedule, this is even if he did not have the authority to raise