1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5, Gap evidence 6-1 and 6-2:

On February 24, 2011, the Plaintiff lent KRW 135 million to C on February 24, 2011, to the same year

3.2. The Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant housing”) No. 404 of the fourth floor (48.9 square meters; hereinafter “the instant housing”) owned by C was registered as the establishment of a mortgage against the obligor C, with respect to the maximum debt amount of KRW 175.5 million, and the obligor C.

B. From December 4, 2013, the Plaintiff delayed interest on the said loan, and around March 2014, filed an application for an auction on the instant housing based on the foregoing collateral security with this court B, and the auction procedure was commenced on the 13th of the same month, and on November 20 of the same year, the instant housing was sold to E.

C. On May 9, 2014, the Defendant reported the right to lease and demanded distribution between C and C with respect to the instant housing on March 8, 2013. As of March 8, 2013, the Defendant concluded a lease contract by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 26 million and the lease term as of April 8, 2015.

On December 24, 2014, the above execution court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that distributes the amount of KRW 22 million to the Defendant, who is the lessee of small claims, in the first order among the amount to be actually distributed on the date of distribution opened on December 24, 2014, and that of KRW 113,001,362 to the Plaintiff, who is the applicant creditor, respectively.

E. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit.

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is the most lessee, or does not reside in the house of this case, or the report on the relocation of the place of residence of a foreigner cannot be deemed a requisite for setting up against the plaintiff under Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed as a small lessee protected under the Housing Lease Protection Act

The lease contract between the defendant and C is selected.