1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 13, 201, with respect to the instant real estate, the Plaintiff was at the time set up a right to collateral security, namely, the debtor E and the maximum debt amount of 100,000,000 with respect to the instant real estate by the owner D.

The Defendant entered into a lease contract with D on August 31, 2013, which provides for a lease deposit of KRW 29,000,000, term of lease from September 20, 2013 to September 19, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and obtained a fixed date on the lease contract on September 3, 2013, and obtained a fixed date on the same month.

6. A move-in report was filed with the instant real estate.

B. In the Seoul Southern District Court C real estate auction case, which had been progress with respect to the instant real estate upon a request for auction by a separate agricultural cooperative, who is a mortgagee, the mortgagee, the amount of KRW 228,029,66 on February 3, 2015, and KRW 25,00,000 as a small lessee, KRW 69,440 as a small lessee, and KRW 201,46,565 as a floating creditor to the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, and the remaining amount of KRW 1,493,61 as a floating creditor was distributed to the Plaintiff as a floating creditor (hereinafter referred to as the “instant distribution schedule”), and presented the distribution schedule to interested parties.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, Eul evidence No. 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the primary cause of claim, and the following matters are pointed out, and the instant lease agreement was concluded in a false manner to obtain unjust benefits by abusing the Housing Lease Protection Act which recognizes preferential payment right if it satisfies the requisite for setting up against the buyer only prior to the commencement of auction in order to protect small-sum lessee. Thus, the Defendant did not constitute a small-sum lessee subject to protection under the same Act, and the instant lease agreement, which was first distributed by the Defendant as a small-sum lessee, should be revised as

- The husband of the defendant and the defendant on August 31, 2013, which entered into the instant lease agreement.