1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5.

On August 20, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant on August 20, 2012, which is 24,000,000 rental deposit (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with respect to D apartment 207, Dong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. At the time of the instant lease agreement, the 4th mortgage was established on the instant apartment, and the 5th provisional attachment decision was registered.

C. On September 11, 2012, according to the request for auction by the Korea Housing Finance Corporation, a mortgagee, the apartment of this case was voluntarily decided by the Incheon District Court E. D.

In the above auction procedure, the Plaintiff applied for a dividend as a small lessee, and on May 29, 2013, the above court prepared a distribution schedule with the purport that the Plaintiff distributes KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

E. The Korea Housing Finance Corporation, on the date of the said distribution, raised an objection to the distribution against the Plaintiff regarding the full amount of the dividend on the said date, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Plaintiff under Incheon District Court Decision 2013Da215651.

On September 25, 2013, the above court rendered a judgment that revoked the instant lease agreement and deleted KRW 20,000,000 distributed to the Plaintiff and distributed it to the Korea Housing Finance Corporation on the ground that the conclusion of the instant lease agreement with C, the Plaintiff’s debt excess status, would constitute a fraudulent act.

F. At the time of the instant lease agreement, the lease deposit price of the instant apartment was 130,000,000 won.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant did not notify at all the risk of revocation of the instant lease agreement, and provided that the deposit can be recovered in a stable manner as a small-sum lessee.