1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant was a mortgagee with regard to the first floor 302 of Busan Shipping Daegu Down-do, which was owned by C (hereinafter “instant loan”), and was voluntarily decided to commence the auction of the instant real estate by the court on December 30, 2014, and the registration was completed on December 31, 2014.

B. On October 26, 2015, this Court distributed KRW 199,870 in the first order to the Busan Metropolitan City Shipping Daegu, the holder of the right to deliver (the pertinent tax) on the date of distribution, and KRW 258,120,738 in the second order to the defendant who is the applicant creditor (the mortgagee), and did not distribute to the defendant who made a demand for distribution as a small lessee.

C. On the date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection against KRW 20,00,000 among the amount distributed by the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on November 2, 2015.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 2 and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C on the deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000 with respect to the two partitions of the instant loan.

B. However, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of KRW 25,50,000, which was lent to C by E, was transferred from E by the Plaintiff, in lieu of a partial payment of lease deposit with the loan repayment claim to C, and the remainder of KRW 4,500,000 was paid to C on October 30, 2014.

C. On October 30, 2014, the Plaintiff moved in the instant loan, completed the move-in report, and received the fixed date.

Therefore, as a tenant of small amount under the Housing Lease Protection Act, 20,000,000 won out of the lease deposit should be distributed to the plaintiff preferentially to the defendant.

Therefore, the distribution schedule should be revised in accordance with the purport of the claim.

3. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 12 as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, a lease contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and C as alleged by the Plaintiff, and the deposit was paid in the same manner as alleged by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff completed the move-in report on the instant loan on October 30, 2014.