1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 18, 2011, the Plaintiff registered the creation of a new mortgage on the F No. 401, 403, 500,000 (hereinafter “instant building”) on the 3rd parcel, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the 4030,000,000 won (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On February 11, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with D to lease the instant building at KRW 50 million and KRW 1 million in monthly rent (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and subsequently, on April 2, 2012, the Defendant received a fixed date on the relevant lease contract and filed a move-in report on the instant building.

C. On August 31, 2012, the Incheon District Court rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction on the instant building B, and subsequently rendered a decision to commence voluntary auction as the above father-Support C on October 11, 2013.

On the other hand, at the above auction procedure on October 5, 2012, the Defendant, as a lessee, demanded a distribution of KRW 50 million. On January 24, 2014, the said court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes each of the KRW 307,665,410 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the instant lease agreement was false and conclusive in collusion with D, and thus, the instant distribution schedule should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 2, the building of this case is an officetel with a section of exclusive ownership of 146.27 square meters and a room of 4 square meters. The defendant is recognized as having made a move-in report independently on the building of this case, but it is also recognized as having made a move-in report, and according to the statements in Eul No. 1 through No. 8, the lease contract of this case seems to have been made under the involvement of the real estate broker