1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) and C.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed to be combined.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 20, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C, with respect to the lease deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 400,000, and the lease period of KRW 400,00, and the lease period of KRW 400,00 with respect to the Dayang-gu D apartment Nos. 918, 504 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by C (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On April 7, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C and received the same fixed date on the same day.

B. On December 26, 2012, the Defendant entered into a credit card membership agreement with the non-party E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party E”) on the Defendant’s bonds and joint and several liability obligations, and entered into a credit transaction agreement with the non-party company on June 20, 2014, and C jointly and severally guaranteed each of the above obligations of the non-party company.

C. On May 14, 2008, the instant real estate had been completed with the right to collateral security worth KRW 275,000,000, which was the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (right to collateral security), Nam-ju Agricultural Cooperatives, the maximum debt amount (right to collateral security).

The said mortgagee filed an application for commencement of voluntary auction with the Ji Government District Court Goyang Branch B regarding the instant real estate, and on June 1, 2015, the auction procedure was conducted upon receipt of a decision to commence the auction from the said court.

At the time, the registration of each provisional seizure was completed with the new card company, one card company, the Credit Guarantee Fund, and the defendant as the creditor, and the plaintiff filed a demand for distribution and a report on the right as the lessee in the above auction procedure.

On December 1, 2015, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule to the effect that the creditors distribute each amount of dividends to the creditors (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) by allocating dividends of KRW 5,676,304 to the Defendant, who is the person holding the provisional seizure, except for the Plaintiff’s dividends.

Accordingly, the plaintiff appears on the date of distribution and 4,997,925 won out of the defendant's dividend amount.