1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 14, 2013, at the request of the Industrial Bank of Korea, which was the first and second collateral security (hereinafter “instant housing”), the auction procedure commenced with the Seoul Southern District Court B on March 14, 2013, and the entry registration of the decision on commencement of auction was completed on the same day. On March 14, 2013, the auction procedure began in duplicate C with C on March 14, 2013, and the entry registration of the decision on commencement of auction was completed on March 15, 2013.

B. The Defendant asserted to the executing court that he is a small lessee of the instant housing, and filed a report on the right and demand for distribution.

C. On April 24, 2014, a date of distribution, a court of execution prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) with the content of distributing KRW 80,129,565 in the order of priority 3 to the Plaintiff who acquired the right to collateral security by transfer of the Industrial Bank of Korea (100%) and KRW 25,870,532 to the Defendant, a lessee of small claims, and KRW 30,129,565 in the order of priority 4.

The plaintiff appeared on the date of the above distribution and raised an objection against the total amount of the defendant's dividends.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the primary purpose of collecting claims prior to prior security holders by abusing the Housing Lease Protection Act that recognizes the right to preferential payment of small-sum lessee, and thus, it does not constitute a small-sum lessee subject to protection under the Housing Lease Protection Act. In addition, the Defendant constitutes the most lessee and thus does not have the right to receive dividends in the above auction procedure. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the instant distribution schedule was made as stated in the purport of the claim. 2) The Defendant was the member of the church where F was a church, which was the Plaintiff’s assertion, and as the company house was to be called for influence upon resignation of the post of a large-sum lessee, D is aware of the defects in real estate investment while preparing the Defendant’s disposition against D