1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 18, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the provisional attachment registration of KRW 38,250,000 as claimed on November 18, 2015, and KRW 56,00,000 as claimed on December 8, 2012.

B. On June 28, 2016, upon the application of the National Bank, Co., Ltd., the mortgagee of the instant real estate, the Seoul Northern District Court B made a decision to commence voluntary auction and the registration thereof.

C. Meanwhile, on June 27, 2016, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C to lease the instant real estate with the lease deposit amount of KRW 25,00,00,000, and the lease term of KRW 27, June 27, 2016 to June 26, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On June 27, 2016, the Defendant made a move-in report on the instant real estate, and obtained a fixed date in the instant lease agreement.

On April 27, 2017, the aforementioned court: (a) distributed KRW 25,00,000 to the Defendant as the first-class lessee on the date of distribution of the above auction procedure; (b) on the other hand, the Plaintiff made a distribution schedule that did not distribute dividends to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”); (c) the Plaintiff appeared on the said date of distribution and raised an objection against the total amount of KRW 25,00,000 distributed to the Defendant; and (d) filed the instant lawsuit on May 2, 2017, which was seven days thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that, around the other hand, the lease agreement of this case was concluded falsely, and the defendant is the most lessee, so the distribution schedule of this case, which is based on the premise that the defendant is a senior creditor rather than the plaintiff, should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim. In addition, the lease agreement of this case should be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act, and therefore, the distribution schedule of this case should be revised as stated in

3...