1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant, and those resulting from the intervention in the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal of some contents as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

The second sentence of the judgment of the first instance court is to add “the date of December 17, 2009,” in front of the “person having chonsegwon”.

From 3th to 16th of the judgment of the first instance court, the third to 14th of the judgment is as follows.

According to the overall purport of the statement and arguments, it is recognized that the defendant's registration of the establishment of chonsegwon on the real estate in this case was not cancelled even after the first auction procedure, and it was cancelled on September 20, 2017 after the defendant paid the sale price to the defendant in the second auction procedure. However, according to the entries of evidence No. 3 and the facts and the purport of the whole pleadings in this court, the defendant applied for a report of right and demand for distribution as a person having chonsegwon in the first auction procedure on September 6, 2011, although he applied for a priority payment as a tenant, the distribution schedule was prepared as a tenant on April 5, 2013, and it was also recognized that the defendant received dividends of KRW 1,983,752 as a tenant on April 5, 2013. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the defendant not only received a right to preferential reimbursement in the first auction procedure, but also received dividends as a tenant on the small amount of money in the second auction procedure.