1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 19, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-

B. On the basis of the instant right to collateral security, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction of the instant apartment based on the instant right to collateral security, and on December 30, 2013, the procedure of voluntary auction was initiated with the District Court B.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). C.

In the instant auction procedure, on October 30, 2014, the instant court prepared a distribution schedule stating that the Defendant asserted as the lessee of the instant apartment in the order of priority on October 1, 2014, KRW 14 million, and that the Defendant distributes KRW 193,340,236 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). D.

The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against the Defendant regarding the dividend amount of KRW 14 million, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the instant distribution on November 6, 2014.

E. C purchased the instant apartment on May 2, 2013, and reported the transaction value of the instant apartment to KRW 386,584,000. The appraisal price of the instant apartment in the instant auction procedure is KRW 300 million.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 3, 11-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is the most lessee who entered into a false rental agreement on the apartment of this case in order to receive the distribution of small amount lease deposit, or lessee who cannot be protected under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

B. In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the Plaintiff shall prove the facts constituting the grounds for the demurrer against distribution.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da32178 delivered on November 14, 1997). Comprehensively taking account of each description of evidence Nos. 2, 8, and 9 as a whole, the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: ① Defendant c on October 2, 2013.