1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 13, 2014, the Plaintiff, as a creditor to C, provisionally seized the claimed amount of KRW 139,289,360,00 for C-owned Dong-gu D & 149 square meters and above ground wooden and coaguable house (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”); and

B. On November 9, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction on the instant real estate.

On January 30, 2018, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute dividends of KRW 10 million to the Defendant, a lessee of small amount of money, KRW 42 million to Gwangju Metropolitan City Livestock Cooperative, a collateral security holder, and KRW 62,394,342 to the Plaintiff, a provisional attachment creditor, in the last order.

C. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and stated an objection against the full amount of the Defendant’s dividend, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on February 1, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 and 5, the purpose of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Defendant is only the most lessee who has received the move-in report and the fixed date in a formal manner to receive preferential dividend as a small lessee.

(2) Even if a genuine lessee is a real lessee, the Defendant’s conclusion of a lease agreement with C constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, a creditor, even though the instant real estate was subject to provisional attachment and collateral security, which exceeded the market price.

The above lease contract should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

(3) Therefore, the amount of dividends to the Defendant should be distributed to all the Plaintiff.

B. There was a fact that C referred to the purport that “the Defendant is not residing” in the current status of the auction case as to whether the most lessee is the Plaintiff.

(A) However, in light of the following circumstances, the Defendant leased one room among the instant houses and actually resided therein, which are recognized by the descriptions and images of Nos. 1 through 9.