1. The plaintiff's appeal as to the main claim is dismissed.

2. Part of the preliminary claim in the judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is that the first “instant real estate” is “real estate recorded in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and that, except for the fact that the “instant real estate” from the next day is deemed to be “instant apartment”, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff is the most lessee who entered into the instant lease agreement to obtain unjust benefits by abusing the Housing Lease Protection Act that guarantees the right to preferential reimbursement of small-sum lessee, and thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant lease agreement is null and void, and seeks revision of the instant distribution schedule distributed to the Defendant, the most lessee, to the Defendant.

(2) The Plaintiff, as ancillary, asserts that the instant lease agreement entered into between the Defendant and D constitutes a fraudulent act, and sought the revocation of the said agreement and the correction of the instant distribution schedule distributed to the Defendant, who is a beneficiary of bad faith, to the Defendant.

B. The reasons why the court should explain this part of whether it is the most lease are, the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, 2-B.

Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. (1) Whether a fraudulent act is a fraudulent act. (1) Since the right of priority repayment under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act grants a kind of statutory security right that can be repaid in preference to claims secured by mortgages, taxes, etc. on the leased house, the debtor's act of establishing the right of lease under the above Act on the only house owned by the debtor in excess of the debt constitutes an act of causing a decrease in the debtor's whole property as a security in excess of the debt, and therefore, the act of establishing