1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 12, 201, the Plaintiff leased from Codefendant B of the court of first instance the Gangseo-gu Seoul E-Ba No. 202 (hereinafter “instant housing”) by setting the deposit amount of KRW 70,00,000, and the period of February 23, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), respectively, as the fixed date on February 21, 201, and obtained the fixed date on the instant lease contract from B on February 24, 2011.

B. On February 24, 2011, Party B completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the instant housing to the Defendant on February 24, 2011, the Seoul Southern District Court Gangseo-gu, Seoul Southern District Court No. 9794, Feb. 24, 2011, as the maximum debt amount of KRW 158,40,000, and the debtor B as the debtor B

(hereinafter referred to as the "mortgage of this case") C.

With respect to the instant housing, the voluntary auction procedure has been in progress to Seoul Southern District Court C (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). In the above auction procedure, ① the Plaintiff, as a small lessee, was distributed KRW 25,000,000 among the deposit amount under the instant lease agreement, and ② the Defendant was distributed as the mortgagee of the instant case KRW 127,923,330, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) During the instant auction procedure, the Plaintiff was not paid the remainder of the deposit in addition to receiving dividends as a small lessee on February 25, 201, on the ground that the date of acquisition of the opposing power for the instant housing was on February 25, 2011. However, the instant lease agreement was concluded on the premise that the Plaintiff secured the first preferential right to payment for B, and the Defendant was well aware of the same fact at the time of establishment of the instant right to collateral security, and thus, the Defendant’s receiving of dividends in accordance with the instant auction procedure prior to the Plaintiff is against the good faith principle.