The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 13, 2013, the Plaintiff leased KRW 45,000,00 to D on the same day, and completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 67,50,000 for the building E and 301 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by D on the same day, with respect to the maximum debt amount of KRW 67,50,000 (hereinafter “instant establishment registration”).

B. On August 27, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for a voluntary auction on real estate of this case to Seoul Eastern District Court C, and on August 28, 2013, the voluntary auction procedure was initiated regarding the instant real estate.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). C.

On September 12, 2013, the Defendant reported the right to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 80,000,000 as a lessee of the instant real estate and made a demand for distribution. D.

On May 16, 2014, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule stating that KRW 85,080,00, among KRW 94,961,60,06, which is to be actually distributed on the date of distribution, to the National Health Insurance Corporation, the issuing authority, and KRW 80,00,00,00 to the Defendant, the lessee, and KRW 5,406,90,00 to the Plaintiff, the requesting creditor, and KRW 15,293,243, which is to be distributed to the Seoul Credit Guarantee Foundation, the provisional seizure authority (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

E. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against the Defendant’s dividend amount, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on May 21, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant, in collusion with D on April 12, 2013, when the remaining payment date and the date of occupancy stipulated in the lease agreement for the real estate of this case were corrected on May 15, 2013, before the completion of the registration of creation of the neighboring real estate of this case, and received a senior distribution over the plaintiff. Thus, it is unlawful for the auction court to consider the defendant as the senior debtor and distribute the total amount of the deposit. The distribution schedule of this case is 62,093 out of the defendant's dividend amount.