1. A lease contract concluded on July 7, 2013 between the Defendant and Gyeyang-gu in Incheon, 201 Dong 701 is concluded between the Defendant and B.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, on June 4, 2010, lent KRW 185 million to B, as collateral, completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage amount of KRW 240,50 million to Gyeyang-gu Incheon, 201 Dong 701 (hereinafter “instant housing”) owned by B as collateral.

B. On July 7, 2013, the Defendant concluded a lease contract with the term of KRW 24 million on the instant housing and the term of lease from July 19, 2013 to July 19, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

C. On September 24, 2013, upon the Plaintiff’s request for auction to enforce the right to collateral security, an auction procedure was initiated regarding the instant house on September 24, 2013. On October 6, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff was a small lessee on the date of distribution, and the Defendant was first distributed a dividend of KRW 20 million to the Defendant, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the

(In Incheon District Court D). d.

On the other hand, as of October 6, 2014, the amount of secured debt of the right to collateral security established by the Plaintiff on the instant housing as of October 6, 2014, is KRW 218,596,592.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 5, 11, Eul evidence 4-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the most lessee who has abused the small-sum lessee system under the Housing Lease Protection Act, or the lease contract of this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act, so the defendant should be excluded from the distribution of dividends.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is the genuine lessee who actually paid the lease deposit to B after hearing the words of the licensed real estate agent who is subject to the highest repayment, and entered into the instant lease agreement, and actually resided in B, and the Defendant could not be thought that the instant lease agreement would be prejudicial to the Plaintiff due to the lack of knowledge of other obligations of B. Therefore, the Defendant constitutes a bona fide beneficiary.

3. Determination

(a) whether a fraudulent act constitutes a fraudulent act, Gap evidence 2 to 5, 18 to 24 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 4-1, and the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of this Court;