1. The appeal filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the counterclaim filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) at the trial are all dismissed.

2...

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is decided to accept it as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 4

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the principal claim, the Plaintiff is entitled to the top priority repayment under the Housing Lease Protection Act, barring any special circumstance, and thus, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) should pay KRW 20 million out of the dividend that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) received.

B. The Defendant’s assertion and counterclaim 1) Defendant’s assertion that the instant lease agreement was concluded in collusion with C is a false lease agreement concluded by the Plaintiff, or the primary purpose is to collect claims by being protected as a small lessee, and thus, is null and void.

B) In addition to the fact that the Plaintiff actually paid the deposit amount of KRW 25 million to C in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 8-1 to 3, the judgment was examined, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 8 (including the paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).

(B) Each of the entries in the judgment alone is insufficient to recognize the facts of the defendant's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, the above argument by the defendant is without merit. The lease contract of this case as asserted by the defendant is a fraudulent act detrimental to the defendant, who is the creditor of C, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for the principal lawsuit must be dismissed. (B) Each of the entries in Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, 4, 5, 6, and the inquiry inquiry about the director of the tax office of the court of the trial and the head of the Seocheoncheon District Tax Office at the time of the lease contract of this case.

In addition, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the instant lease agreement resulted in insolvent.

In addition, according to the evidence No. 8, the appraisal price at the time of May 27, 2014 is 216 million won.