1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The real estate indicated in the separate sheet between the defendant and B shall be indicated.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the purport of the whole pleadings in each of the statements as evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 9, and Eul evidence No. 1 to 4.

On May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 76 million to B (18% per annum of June 5, 2019, the reimbursement period), and on June 5, 2014, the Plaintiff created a collateral security interest of KRW 90,120,000 on the attached real estate indicated in B, the only property indicated in B as the collateral (at the market price of KRW 135,00,000,000; hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. Meanwhile, on July 21, 2014, the Defendant, as a broker of Licensed Real Estate Agent D, agreed to pay KRW 32 million for the lease deposit and KRW 2 million for the lease of the instant real estate from August 16, 2014 to August 15, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease”) on the contractual date when renting the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant lease”). On August 16, 2014, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 30 million for the remainder on August 16, 2014.

In addition, the Defendant made a move-in report on the instant real estate on August 18, 2014, and received the fixed date and transferred the remainder of KRW 30 million to E, the agent of B, on August 20, 2014, and paid gas charges and electricity charges on the instant real estate.

C. On January 7, 2015, the Plaintiff received the instant decision to commence the auction on the instant real estate. On December 18, 2015, the auction court drafted a distribution schedule to distribute the Defendant a small amount of KRW 32 million, and KRW 51,879,494, respectively, to the Plaintiff, on the premise that the Defendant is a lessee of the instant real estate.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the amount of dividends of the Defendant on the date of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit on December 23, 2015.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the most primary tenant of the defendant, and the lease contract of this case between the defendant and B is cancelled as a fraudulent act. Thus, it is the restoration to its original state by eliminating the defendant's dividend amount.