1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 10, 1997, the Plaintiff: (a) determined the instant house as KRW 50,000,000, and the period of twenty-four months from the lessee E under the 302 of the 302 Housing on the ground of the land (hereinafter “instant housing”) among the instant housing owned by Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Da, and one parcel of land (hereinafter “instant sublease contract”).

B. On July 8, 2013, the registration of provisional seizure was completed in the name of the Defendant regarding the instant house, and the Plaintiff obtained a fixed date in the instant sublease contract on November 27, 2015.

C. Upon the Defendant’s application for compulsory auction as a creditor of C, the compulsory auction procedure for the instant housing was conducted as Cheongju District Court’s Chungcheong Branch B. On November 9, 2016, the said court drafted a distribution schedule stating that “The dividends of KRW 16,09,694 to Cheongju-si, 9,690, 3,326,130, and 3,326,130 to the 2nd creditor National Health Insurance Corporation, the creditor of the 3rd creditor and the Defendant of the National Health Insurance Corporation, and the Cheongju-si, each of the dividends of KRW 1,19,155, 10,576,48, and 898,231, respectively, in proportion to the amount of the claims” (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff did not fully distribute to the Plaintiff, even though he/she received a demand for distribution at the instant auction procedure, as a lessee with the opposing power over the instant housing. Therefore, the Plaintiff ought to be corrected to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 10,576,488, which was distributed to the Defendant among the instant dividend table, KRW 5,288,244, which was distributed to the Defendant.

B. In light of the determination, there is no evidence to prove that the instant sub-lease contract was concluded with the consent of the lessor C, which is the lessor, and even if the instant sub-lease contract was concluded with the consent of the lessor, the Plaintiff, the lessor, does not have a direct claim for the refund of the deposit to C, which is the lessor, and otherwise, the grounds for the Plaintiff to acquire a direct claim for the refund of the deposit to C.