1. The amount of dividends to the plaintiff out of the distribution schedule prepared on September 23, 2014 by the court, in view of the auction cases of the courtB real estate.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 24, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage agreement with C on the apartment of this case with the debtor C, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 528,00,000, with respect to the apartment of this case, and completed the establishment registration of a mortgage near the same day

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for a voluntary auction of real estate as C did not repay the loan, and on January 8, 2014, the instant apartment was issued a decision to commence the auction of real estate (hereinafter “instant auction”) with respect to the instant apartment to B at this court.

C. On February 14, 2014, the Defendant leased one column of the instant apartment to KRW 25,000,000,000 from the instant auction procedure on November 1, 2013, and filed a move-in report and received a fixed date.

The report on the right and the demand for distribution was made by asserting that they were ‘the right'.

On September 23, 2014, the court of auction prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant, who is a lessee of small claims, and KRW 403,357,95 to the Plaintiff, who is a mortgagee, in the third order.

The plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the total amount of distribution to the defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap's 1, 2, 4, 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. On the contrary, the plaintiff, in collusion with C for the purpose of receiving dividends at the auction procedure of this case, should be revoked as a fraudulent act detrimental to the other creditors in excess of C’s obligation, and thus, in collusion with C for the purpose of receiving dividends at the auction procedure of this case, either as the most lessee or as the preliminary lessee.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that his father D is a true lessee who has resided in the Republic of Korea with his workplace and resided in the Republic of Korea as his father D remains in the Republic of Korea, and Edo, which is the mother, frequent entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea in the Republic of Korea, and left the house of his father C with his father, and paid the lease deposit per contract, and actually resided in the instant apartment.

(b) judgment;