1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 31, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 100,000,00 to Nonparty D. On September 4, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage agreement with respect to the real estate indicated in the attached list owned by E as collateral for the said loan (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the spouse of D, and completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the same content.

B. D delayed the repayment of the above loan debt, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction of the instant apartment with the Ulsan District Court C on July 11, 2014, and the decision to commence voluntary auction was rendered on the same day.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant auction procedure”) with respect to the auction procedure based on the said decision to commence the auction.

On the other hand, on July 28, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for a report on rights and a demand for distribution on the ground that he/she is a small lessee who leased one room in KRW 30,000,00 among E and the apartment of this case.

Accordingly, on March 27, 2015, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule of KRW 19,00,000, out of KRW 162,403,593, which is to be actually distributed on the date of distribution, to the Defendant, who is the lessee of small claims, who is the applicant creditor and the mortgagee of small claims, to distribute each amount of KRW 78,986,863 to the Plaintiff, who is the applicant creditor and the mortgagee of small claims (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

E. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection to the whole amount of distribution to the Defendant, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on April 2, 2015, within one week.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Gap 5, 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The assertion by the parties is a false lease agreement that the Defendant entered into with E as to one column among the apartment buildings of this case with the knowledge that the Defendant would harm the Plaintiff, a creditor, to abuse the protection system for small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act. Therefore, the Defendant’s dividends should be distributed to the Plaintiff in preference to the small lessee in the instant distribution schedule.