1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are attributable to the Defendant’s participation in the appeal.

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is added to the evidence submitted in the court of first instance, and most of the fact-finding and judgment in the court of

Therefore, this court's reasoning is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal of part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Parts 1-a of the dried part;

The 1st sentence of paragraph (1) of the same paragraph shall be changed to the Mapopo-si C (Road Name Address E).

ARTICLE 1-2

The term "a lease contract was entered into" in the parallel of paragraphs 4 through 5 shall be read as "a lease contract was entered into, and a notary public entered into on January 26, 2015, as "a fixed date has been obtained from a law firm Seom stone in the lease contract."

ARTICLE 1-2

Now 6-7 was handed over, and the front door of the India building of this case was marked as 102, and the front door of the India building of this case was handed over.

ARTICLE 1-C

A certified copy of the resident registration under Paragraph 4 shall be written with the "certified copy of the resident registration".

The phrase “40,474,659 won” as the phrase “40,474,569 won” as the phrase “40,474,569 won,” and the phrase “28,563,600 won” as the phrase “28,563,650 won.”

2. Whether the defendant has an opposing power

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) did not receive the instant leased building (No. 102), and only received the instant humanitarian building (No. 101). Moreover, when D first made a move-in report, it did not appear on the basis of resident registration as to whether there was a lessee of the instant leased building at the time of the establishment of the instant right to collateral security. Therefore, the Defendant failed to obtain the opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and thus, the instant distribution schedule that distributed KRW 40 million to the Defendant should be corrected. 2) The Defendant’s assertion D is.