1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on February 16, 2017 by the said court with respect to the case of the voluntary auction of real estate B by the Gwangju District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 20, 201, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation”) appointed a trustee in bankruptcy after having been declared bankrupt on June 15, 201 with respect to the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table owned by C, D, the maximum debt amount, 1,040,000,000 (hereinafter “instant land”) as to the debtor, C, D, the maximum debt amount, 1,404,000, and the building listed in Paragraph (2) of the attached Table owned by C (hereinafter “the instant building”) as to August 27, 2003, with respect to the registration of creation of mortgage as to the debtor, C, D, the maximum debt amount, 1,404,00,000, and the registration of establishment of mortgage as to the land listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table owned by C (hereinafter “the instant building”).

B. On July 29, 2015, upon the application of the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund, the auction procedure for real estate rent was initiated in Gwangju District Court B with respect to the instant land and the instant building. On the date of distribution implemented on February 16, 2017, the said court, as a small lessee on the date of distribution, distributed KRW 9,00,000 to the Defendants each in the first order, and drafted a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) that distributes KRW 17,498,73 in the second order to the Plaintiff as a mortgagee.

C. On February 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on February 21, 2017, wherein he/she had an objection to the entire amount of dividends against the Defendants among the instant distribution schedule on the said date.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, and 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that not only the most lessee of the building of this case but also the commercial building of this case, but also the actual purpose of the plaintiff's claim collection is to be made prior to the plaintiff, who is the prior security holder, to be protected as the tenant of commercial building of this case, and thus, it cannot be protected as a small lessee under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

For this reason,