1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be acknowledged either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4, and evidence 5-1.

With respect to the Incheon Gyeyang-guD and E 202 story 202 owned by C (hereinafter “instant building”), the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage, which is the debtor C and the plaintiff of the right to collateral security, was completed on November 23, 2011.

B. The Plaintiff around April 7, 2014.

Based on the right to collateral security, the Incheon District Court filed an application for a voluntary auction of the instant building B with the Incheon District Court, and the decision of voluntary auction was rendered on April 8, 2014 by the above court.

C. The Defendant asserted that the lease contract with C was concluded on January 27, 2013, which was stipulated from March 11, 2013 to March 10, 2015 as the lease deposit amount of KRW 23,00,000 for the instant building, and the term of lease from March 11, 2013 to March 10, 2015, and filed an application for a report on rights and a demand for distribution with the auction court around April 17, 2014, while the said auction procedure was in progress.

On November 25, 2014, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”) that distributes the amount of KRW 80,348,289 to the Plaintiff, who is the applicant creditor (the mortgagee), to the Defendant, who is the small lessee, in the first priority order, KRW 22,00,000,00, and KRW 58,279,50.

E. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against KRW 16,802,511 out of the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on December 2, 2014, which was seven days thereafter.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is selectively selected, as the Defendant is the most lessee, the amount of dividend against the Defendant should be deleted, or the conclusion of a lease agreement on the instant building is a fraudulent act between C and C with a debt excess. Therefore, the amount of dividend against the Defendant should be revoked and the amount of dividend should be deleted.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is that a lease contract is concluded with C, the owner of the instant building at the time.