1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On April 19, 2010, the Plaintiff leased the Seo-gu Incheon Seo-gu Officetel (hereinafter “instant real estate”) No. 404 by the lease deposit amounting to KRW 45 million and the lease deposit amount by March 24, 2012. The Plaintiff paid the full amount of lease deposit around that time.

On April 30, 2010, the Plaintiff obtained a fixed date in the above lease agreement.

B. On March 30, 2012, the Plaintiff changed the subject matter of the lease from D to 404 to 405, maintained the deposit as it is, and concluded a lease contract again by setting the lease period as March 30, 2014.

On January 3, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained a fixed date in a lease contract again prepared by the Plaintiff.

C. Since the instant real estate is a general building that is not an aggregate building, as long as the Plaintiff’s resident registration has been accurately reported, whether the occupied portion is 404 or 405 or not does not entirely problematic with the Plaintiff’s opposing power or right to preferential payment.

Therefore, on April 30, 2010, the Plaintiff’s right to preferential reimbursement regarding the instant real estate should be deemed as maintaining its validity as it is.

Defendant B leased another heading room of the instant real estate and obtained the fixed date on July 5, 2010, and Defendant C also leased another heading room of the instant real estate and obtained the fixed date on December 10, 2010, and thus, Defendant C is a lower-ranking lessee rather than the Plaintiff.

E. On April 5, 2013, Defendant B received a decision to commence compulsory auction on the instant real estate from the Incheon District Court F, and commenced the auction procedure.

The plaintiff asserted in the complaint that the above auction procedure commenced with the application of a limited liability company specializing in the prestigious securitization of young children. However, according to the Gap evidence No. 1, it is obvious that this is a clerical error.

F. In the above auction procedure on May 7, 2015, the distribution schedule was prepared on May 7, 2015. Defendant B with the first priority (small-sum lessee) of KRW 20 million, the fourth priority (date of confirmation) of KRW 20 million, and Defendant C.