1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 18, 2010, the Plaintiff leased Daejeon Seosung-gu D, 510 (hereinafter “instant building”) from C to April 19, 2011, the deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 500,000, monthly rent of KRW 500,000, and the term of lease from April 20, 201 to April 19, 201.

B. On April 26, 2010, the Plaintiff received a fixed date from the instant lease agreement on September 6, 2010 after filing a move-in report on the instant building.

C. As to the instant building on December 7, 2012, the decision to voluntarily commence the auction has been rendered on December 7, 2012, and the Plaintiff filed an application for demand for distribution as to KRW 20,000,000 on October 8, 2013, which was after February 25, 2013, the completion period for demand for distribution.

On December 19, 2013, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule stating that the amount to be distributed actually on the date of distribution shall be KRW 103,829,423, which is the date of distribution, to the defendant who is the mortgagee.

E. The Plaintiff E appeared on the date of the above distribution, and raised an objection against KRW 14,00,000 among the Defendant’s dividends.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is the holder of the priority repayment right under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and 14,000,000 out of the amount distributed to the defendant is entitled to receive a dividend prior to the defendant as a small amount deposit.

Therefore, the distribution schedule of this case must be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

3. Determination

A. A creditor who has an executory exemplification, a creditor who has effected a provisional seizure subsequent to the registration of a decision to commence the auction, or a creditor who has the right to demand a preferential reimbursement under the Civil Act, the Commercial Act, and other Acts, may receive a distribution only when he/she makes a demand for distribution by the completion period to demand a distribution. In cases where a legitimate demand for distribution is not made, even if he/she is a creditor who has the right to demand a preferential reimbursement under the substantive Acts, he/she shall not receive a distribution from the proceeds of sale (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da65242, Dec. 24