1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. In this case where there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the distribution schedule was prepared as shown in the separate sheet in the case of applying for a compulsory auction against B real estate in this case, the plaintiff entered into the lease contract of this case as the ground for objection against the distribution of this case, which is "the defendant was well aware that the owner of the real estate of this case and C, who is the lessor, bear a large amount of debts," which constitutes a fraudulent act that causes a decrease in the joint security of the debtor, and the defendant constitutes a fraudulent act that causes damage to the general creditor, and the lease contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act that causes damage to the general creditor. Thus, the defendant's correction of the above distribution schedule against the defendant was sought as stated in the purport of the claim, stating that "the dividend of this case against the defendant is unfair, but it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff's domestic payment was the cause of the claim of this case, and there is no other sufficient evidence to recognize it.

2. According to the conclusion, the Plaintiff does not accept the objection against the distribution of this case.