1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff received a collection order for the remaining amount, excluding the amount eligible for preferential repayment pursuant to Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, among the lease deposit claims under a lease agreement concluded by the Defendant on January 6, 2016 with respect to No. 303 of Pyeongtaek-si building 303, which the Defendant had against D, from the Suwon District Court Suwon District Court Decision 2016TU, and the aforementioned seizure and collection order was served and finalized to D around that time.

B. D deposited KRW 24,320,00,00 calculated by deducting KRW 5,680,000,000, such as overdue rent of KRW 30,000,000, among the lease deposit money of KRW 30,000,000 in Suwon District Court in 2017. On March 29, 2018, KRW 17,00,000, out of KRW 24,305,128, which is to be actually distributed in the distribution procedure of the Suwon District Court for the said deposit, was recognized as a claim subject to prohibition of seizure and was distributed to the Defendant, and the remaining KRW 7,305,128, which was distributed to the Plaintiff, the collection authority.

C. The Plaintiff raised an objection against the Defendant’s dividend on the date of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit on April 4, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, and Gap evidence 9

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff is a legitimate creditor against the defendant, the amount of dividends of KRW 17,000,000 against the defendant should be deleted and distributed to the plaintiff.

According to Article 246 (1) 6 of the Civil Execution Act, Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and Article 10 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall not be seized against a small lessee who is entitled to preferential repayment pursuant to Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and Article 10 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. According to the above Acts and subordinate statutes, KRW 17,00,00

Therefore, as seen earlier, only the remaining portion of the claim for the return of the lease deposit of this case excluding the above KRW 17,000,000 among the claims for the refund of the lease deposit of this case was executed upon the seizure and collection order, and the above KRW 17,00,000.