1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed by adding the principal lawsuit and the conjunctive counterclaim.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B is the owner of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment 410 Dong 101 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On April 10, 2012, B delegated the management of the instant real estate to the Yangyang Asset Management Limited Company (hereinafter “YY”).

B. On April 28, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with regard to both land asset management and the instant real estate by stipulating that “The instant real estate shall be handed over to the lessee by no later than May 1, 2012, but the lease term shall not be separately stated” (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. On May 4, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report on the instant real estate, and received a fixed date on May 9, 2012.

After that, on July 24, 2012, the application of the new bank, a collateral security right, was filed by the Seoul Southern District Court D on the instant real estate, and the instant real estate was sold to E on December 11, 2013 at the auction procedure.

On December 13, 2013, the Plaintiff handed over the instant real estate to E.

E. The Defendant (acquisition of the claim from the new bank of the Company) received dividends of KRW 2,064,042,006 as the senior mortgagee on February 2, 2014 in the above auction procedure.

On September 18, 2012, the Plaintiff was excluded from the distribution schedule even though the Plaintiff filed a report on rights and filed an application for demand for distribution to the effect that he/she is a small lessee under Article 8(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, but did not object to distribution.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, Gap 5-1, 2, Gap 6, 7, 9 evidence, Eul 1, Eul 2-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the lessor paid all the security deposit for the instant lease agreement. The Plaintiff actually resided in the instant real estate and paid public charges and maintenance fees.

Despite the fact that the plaintiff is a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act, it is an auction procedure.