1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. As to the auction of the real estate B in Gyeyang-gu District Court Goyang Branch B, the above.

1. Basic facts

A. C completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 24, 2007 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) due to a sale due to a voluntary auction held on the same date with respect to 6-dong 101, Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and on the same day, C created a maximum debt amount of 83,200,000 won, and C-mortgage as the debtor to the Defendant.

B. Since then, on December 10, 2009, the Defendant applied for a voluntary auction on the instant real estate on the basis of the foregoing collateral security, and received a decision to commence voluntary auction (Seoul District Court Dayang Branch Court 221,652,677 in the above auction procedure. At the above auction procedure, the Defendant, as a mortgagee and applicant creditor, was distributed KRW 221,652,67 in the order of priority as a mortgagee. The Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with C with the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million on October 23, 2007 after the Plaintiff received the instant real estate and obtained a fixed date and applied for a report on the right and demand for distribution under the Housing Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Act”), but was excluded from the distribution.

C. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against KRW 30 million out of the amount of distribution distributed by the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5 evidence, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 30,000,000 with respect to the real estate of this case, and completed the move-in report on the same day after delivery of the real estate of this case on October 23, 2007 and acquired the preferential right to payment by obtaining a fixed date. The plaintiff asserts that the distribution schedule should be revised as described in paragraph (2) of this Article, since it shall be paid in preference to the defendant's dividends, who completed the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage on October 24, 20

As to this, the defendant did not pay the sale price and did not transfer the ownership of the real estate of this case to C, and the plaintiff entered into a lease contract with C.