1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 12, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a report on the right and demand for distribution with respect to the D Apartment Nos. 108, 701 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the Suwon District Court concerning the D Apartment No. 108, 701 (hereinafter “instant apartment”), asserting that the Plaintiff was a small lessee who leased the instant apartment from C to KRW 23,00,000,000, to the executing court.

B. On November 17, 2015, a court of execution prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) with respect to KRW 203,239,029, which is to be actually distributed on the date of distribution as of November 17, 2015, to the Defendant with the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) with the content of allocating KRW 203,154,379 to the Defendant with the right to deliver the said KRW 84,650, and the second order.

C. On the aforementioned date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on November 23, 2015, one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 11, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted on November 12, 2014, that the Plaintiff is a genuine small lessee who leased and resided in the instant apartment in KRW 23,000,000 from C, and has the right to receive the top priority payment of KRW 16,00,000 out of the said amount, and thus, the instant distribution schedule should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. According to the following circumstances, the appraisal on the instant auction procedure of the apartment of this case is KRW 220,00,000, around November 2014, the market price of the instant apartment of this case was KRW 212,500,000, which was recognized by comprehensively considering the respective statements in Gap evidence Nos. 8, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, and the overall purport of the pleadings. At the time of the said lease agreement, three cases exceeding that of the instant apartment of this case (the total amount of KRW 350,00,000) and three provisional attachment registrations have been completed, which was about 1 month after the conclusion of the said lease agreement.