1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 7, 2018, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to E, and completed the registration of the establishment of the instant apartment owned by E on February 8, 2018 (F apartment G in Busan, Daegu, the maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million with respect to the instant apartment owned by E (F apartment G).

At the time, on September 23, 2016, the registration of the establishment of the neighboring apartment of this case had already been completed with the maximum debt amount of KRW 163 million of the HH association.

B. On March 2018, the Defendant leased the instant apartment from E with a deposit of KRW 30 million and monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000, and continuously resided around around that time.

(No dispute is raised by the plaintiff). (C)

On April 17, 2019, the voluntary auction procedure for the apartment of this case was commenced around April 2018, and sold KRW 163,243,074 on April 17, 2019 (the Busan District Court dong Branch D real estate auction case). The auction court, on June 17, 2019, prepared a distribution schedule in which the Plaintiff distributes KRW 136,65,208, and KRW 3,50,305 to H association in the order of 136,65,208, and 3,50,305 to the Plaintiff, who reported the first priority lessee on the date of distribution implemented on June 17, 2019.

On June 20, 2019, the Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution and stated that he/she raised an objection against the total amount of the Plaintiff’s dividend.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff asserts that "the defendant had already set the maximum debt amount as to the right to collateral security at the time when he rents the apartment in this case, and the rent of the apartment in this case by paying a very low deposit in light of the market price is concluded with an intention to gain unjust benefits by abusing the Housing Lease Protection Act, and thus, it does not constitute a small lessee subject to protection under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and thus the priority distribution should not be recognized."

B. Considering the legislative purpose and purpose of the Housing Lease Protection Act, the creditor is the debtor with respect to the housing owned by the debtor.