1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant shall be dismissed.

3...

1. Ex officio determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion-owned Cheongju District Court D for the auction procedure of real estate auction (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) was conducted with respect to the five-story apartment houses and neighborhood living facilities underground floors, and 502 rooms among the five-story buildings on the ground, the five-story apartment houses and neighborhood living facilities, and the five-story building.

On May 21, 2015, the Cheongju District Court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes KRW 7,655,000 to the Defendant as a small lessee of 502 rooms.

The defendant was protected as a small lessee and entered into a lease contract with the purpose of collecting the claim in preference to the senior mortgagee.

The defendant shall not be protected as a lessee of small amount prescribed by the Housing Lease Protection Act.

The distribution schedule should be revised to the effect that the Plaintiff, who is the mortgagee of the right to collateral security against the instant building, received dividends from the Defendant.

B. (1) The purpose of a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is to prevent other creditors from receiving dividends in accordance with the distribution schedule and to seek the confirmation of the amount of dividends as alleged by the Plaintiff.

As long as the distribution procedure has been completed after the distribution was already made, even if it was attributable to the fault of the distribution court, there is no profit to file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution.

It is separate that the relief is provided by other procedures.

(See Supreme Court Decision 65Da647 Decided May 31, 1965). According to the purport of the written argument, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of demurrer against distribution was deposited in KRW 7,655,000 as the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on June 9, 2015. The Defendant’s payment of the deposit money on July 20, 2015, which is pending in the first instance trial, and the fact that the distribution procedure has been de facto terminated can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the interest in a lawsuit seeking correction of the instant distribution schedule cannot be acknowledged for the Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant is unlawful and thus dismissed.

The conclusion is different.