1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On March 9, 2017, regarding the case of G real estate auction by the Gwangju District Court C, the above court.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 23, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 35 million to E on September 22, 2015, and completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, which consists of KRW 15.6 million with respect to the instant real estate owned by E, on September 22, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the additional registration changing the maximum debt amount of the said right to collateral security to KRW 25 million, while additionally lending KRW 25 million to E on November 2, 2015.

B. The Dongyang Savings Bank, another mortgagee of the instant real estate, filed an application for voluntary auction with respect to the instant real estate and started the procedure of voluntary auction of real estate to the Gwangju District Court C.

C. In the above auction procedure, the instant real estate was sold, and on March 9, 2017, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) stating that KRW 170,802,933, which is the date of distribution, should be actually distributed to the North-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City, which is the holder of the right to deliver, KRW 74890, KRW 200,000,000 for the Defendant, who is the top priority lessee, and KRW 59,840,000 for the Seo-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City, which is the holder of the right to deliver, and KRW 150,668,203 for the filing creditor savings bank.

The plaintiff was not paid dividends to subordinate mortgagees.

The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection to the total amount of dividends to the Defendant, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on March 14, 2017.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, 7, 14, 15

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that as the defendant is the most lessee of the real estate of this case, the amount of dividends against the defendant should be distributed to the plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that he entered into a lease agreement with E, paid 45 million won as security deposit, and is the genuine lessee who has resided in the real estate in this case.

B. (1) Determination is made on the grounds of objection against distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution.