1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The C Apartment No. 922, 104 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was owned by Nonparty D, and the said real estate was established on July 12, 2006 by the mortgagee, the Defendant, the maximum debt amount, KRW 264,000,000.

B. Around November 20, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report for resident registration on the instant real estate.

C. According to the Defendant’s application for the commencement of voluntary auction on the instant real estate, the voluntary auction procedure was carried out in order to support the High Government District Court, and the Plaintiff reported the right as a lessee and made a demand for distribution.

On April 29, 2016, the above court drafted a distribution schedule to distribute KRW 212,176,643 to the Defendant, except for the Plaintiff’s dividends.

Accordingly, the plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against 12,00,000 won out of the amount of distribution of the defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On April 8, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that the distribution schedule should be revised by allocating the amount of KRW 12,000,000 out of the Defendant’s dividends to the Plaintiff, which is a genuine small lessee under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, who entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty D and completed a moving-in report for resident registration. The instant distribution schedule, except for the Plaintiff, is unreasonable, while the Plaintiff is a genuine small lessee under the protection of Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is the most lessee, and it is reasonable to see that the plaintiff is the lessee who is another lessee of the real estate of this case, and is the lessee who is the other lessee of this case, and the plaintiff does not constitute a small amount lessee under the Housing Lease Protection

3. In full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1 and 4 alone, which were acknowledged as being comprehensively based on the evidence Nos. 1 and 7’s overall purport of the pleadings.