1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. On November 18, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction of the instant apartment upon the establishment registration of a neighboring maximum debt amount of KRW 52,00,000, which was completed by the Daegu District Court No. 109581, Nov. 9, 201 with respect to the D apartment Nos. 106, 1901 (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and upon the establishment registration of a neighboring maximum debt amount of KRW 243,100,000, which was completed by the No. 97487, Nov. 9, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction of the instant apartment. As to the instant apartment, there was a voluntary decision to commence the auction as a support B as of July 26, 2013.

B. In the instant auction procedure, the Defendant asserted that he himself is the lessee regarding the instant apartment, and made a demand for distribution prior to the dividend date, and as to the amount of KRW 256,18,458 to be actually distributed on March 26, 2014, the Defendant prepared a distribution schedule stating that KRW 14,00,000 shall be the Defendant, and KRW 389,980 shall be the Defendant, KRW 389,980, and KRW 238,033,338 of the total amount of claims shall be distributed to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

C. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against the full amount of KRW 14,00,000 against the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution on April 1, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and its judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that, in collusion with C to receive a small amount of lease deposit, the Plaintiff is the most lessee who entered into a false lease agreement, and accordingly, the instant distribution schedule should be revised by eliminating the total amount of dividends to the Defendant and distributing it to the Plaintiff. 2) As such, the Defendant asserts that the instant distribution schedule was duly formulated, since he is the genuine lessee who actually entered into the instant lease agreement with C, as he is the genuine lessee who actually entered into the instant lease agreement with C.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 of the judgment No. 1, the Defendant is subject to C on March 4, 2013.