1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 7, 2014, the procedure for compulsory auction of real estate was commenced on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Mine Construction Co., Ltd. and Pyeongtaek-si G land under the E, F (Dupl), and the above auction case (hereinafter “instant auction case”) on July 1, 2016, the above court: (a) on July 1, 2016, on deeming Defendant B as the small lessee listed in the separate sheet No. 201 (hereinafter “instant building”); (b) Defendant C as the small lessee listed in the separate sheet No. 301 and Defendant D as the small lessee listed in the instant building No. 101; and (c) on deeming them as the small lessee listed in the Housing Lease Protection Act, the amount of KRW 12,000,000 each of the instant building as a security deposit under the Housing Lease Protection Act; and (d) drafted a distribution schedule to distribute the amount of KRW 90,03,767 to the Plaintiff as a collateral security.

B. On July 1, 2016, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the dividend amount of the Defendants on the date of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit on July 7, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number)

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the most lessee, and it is unlawful to distribute the amount of KRW 12,00,000 each to the Defendants as small deposit in the auction case of this case.

Therefore, the distribution schedule should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

3. In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the plaintiff must assert and prove the facts constituting the grounds for the objection against distribution. As such, the plaintiff who filed an objection against distribution by asserting that the other party's claim is disguised, bears the burden of proof therefor.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da32178 delivered on November 14, 1997, etc.). A.

In light of the fact that there is no dispute over the judgment against Defendant B, the evidence Nos. 3-1, 1, 1, 5-1, 2, 7, 8, 15, 18, and 22-1, 5-2, 7, 8, 15, 18, and 22 of the evidence, the witness H’s testimony, and the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the Defendant’s personal examination, the Defendant B and the Mine Construction Co., Ltd., as to 101, 100, 100, 100.