1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 18, 2013, the decision to commence compulsory sale of real estate was rendered on November 18, 2013 with respect to the housing complex E 13 complex E 13, 201 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by Nonparty D, and the decision to commence voluntary sale of real estate was rendered on December 12, 2013 with the same court C (Dupl).

B. In the above auction procedure, the Plaintiff asserted as a small lessee and demanded a distribution, but the above court, except for the Plaintiff’s distribution on September 12, 2014, drafted a distribution schedule with the content that distributes the amount of KRW 14,00,000 to H, a small lessee, and KRW 359,756,645 to the Defendant, who is the right to collateral security, in the second order (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

C. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection to the distribution of KRW 14,00,000 among the Defendant’s dividend amount, and filed the instant lawsuit on September 17, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On March 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) leased 2 partitionss from D, the owner of the instant apartment, and paid the lease deposit; (b) completed the move-in report at that time; and (c) completed the move-in report and resided in the instant apartment; and (d) accordingly, the Plaintiff, as a small lessee, should be paid the small amount of rent KRW 14,00,000, and accordingly, the instant distribution schedule should be corrected as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the distribution schedule of this case except for the dividends of the plaintiff is justifiable because the plaintiff is merely a tenant with D's father's father's father.

3. The following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, i.e., Gap's evidence Nos. 3 through 5 (including household numbers), Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., the plaintiff's dwelling by leasing only two rooms among the apartment buildings of this case, which are real estate owned by his mother with his father as his mother, appears to be exceptional.