1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction with the Gwangju District Court D on the land and the second-class house owned by Nam-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “instant house”), and received dividends of KRW 108,113,748 in the said auction case in the order of December 3, 2017.

B. Plaintiff A, Plaintiff B, and C, their mother, asserted in the above auction procedure that they were the lessee of the instant housing, and filed an application for the right demand and demand for distribution, but did not receive dividends.

C. The Plaintiffs appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against KRW 52,00,000 out of the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit within one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiffs: The Plaintiffs are justifiable lessees, and thus, the amount of security deposit should be distributed.

- Plaintiff A: The move-in report on the instant house on March 18, 2003 and resided on the first floor. The lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million was paid to E on September 1, 201, and KRW 10 million on December 1, 2011, and KRW 20 million on December 23, 201. The lease contract was drafted on February 23, 201, and the fixed date was confirmed on December 17, 2012 - Plaintiff B was moved-in to the instant house on March 18, 2003 and resided on the second floor. The lease contract was made on February 23, 201, and the lease deposit was made on December 17, 201, and the lease contract was made on December 23, 201, and the lease deposit was made on December 17, 2012 to Plaintiff E on December 21, 2011.

B. Defendant: Since both the lease agreements entered into between the Plaintiffs and E are false, the Plaintiffs, the most lessee, should be excluded from the distribution of dividends.

3. In light of the following circumstances recognized by evidence Nos. 4 to 6, Eul evidence No. 1-6, 7 and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings: