1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. It was concluded on August 23, 2012 with regard to the real estate in the separate sheet between the Defendant and B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 16, 2007, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 680,000,000 to B, and completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by B (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in order to secure this.

B. On August 23, 2012, B entered into a lease agreement: (a) the instant apartment was leased to the Defendant with a lease deposit of KRW 21,00,000,000; (b) the term of lease from August 30, 2012 to August 29, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); (c) the Defendant completed the move-in report to the instant apartment on August 23, 2012 and received a fixed date.

C. (1) On January 21, 2013, upon the Plaintiff’s request for auction, the court rendered a decision to voluntarily commence the auction of the instant apartment on January 21, 2013. The auction court shall distribute KRW 16,00,000, out of KRW 371,191,547, the amount to be distributed on December 27, 2013, to the Defendant as a small-sum security deposit as stipulated in the Housing Lease Protection Act, and distribute KRW 958,60,00 to the Defendant under the second priority of the issuance authority, and distribute KRW 348,343,357, to the mortgagee of the right to collateral security who reported the claim of KRW 886,109,465, the amount of KRW 348,343,57 (hereinafter “instant dividend table”).

(2) On January 3, 2014, the Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection to the full amount of KRW 16,000,000 against the Defendant, and thereafter filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of this case on January 3, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, 6 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted by the parties is the most lessee who is not entitled to protection of the Housing Lease Protection Act that entered into a lease agreement with respect to the apartment of this case for the payment of a small amount of lease deposit, and the lease agreement of this case constitutes a fraudulent act.