1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties or may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5:

The Plaintiff’s mother is a creditor holding a claim for a loan amounting to KRW 100,156,980 (i.e., principal amounting to KRW 80,00,000) (i.e., KRW 20,156,980) against C; and the Plaintiff completed the registration of the right to collateral security on December 15, 201 with respect to KRW 102 and KRW 703 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with respect to the right to collateral security (the maximum claim amount to KRW 15,60,000), December 29, 2011, the right to collateral security (the maximum claim amount to KRW 19,50,000), the right to collateral security (the maximum claim amount to KRW 22,10,000), the right to collateral security (the maximum claim amount to KRW 20,00,000), March 6, 2012 (the maximum claim amount to KRW 200,308).

B. On November 13, 2013, upon the Defendant’s application, the former Jeju District Court B rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction on the instant apartment, and the auction procedure was in progress.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). C.

In the instant auction procedure, the Plaintiff asserted that he is a lessee of the instant apartment, but the Jeonju District Court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes all of KRW 84,214,201 to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”), and the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure and raised an objection against the Defendant’s dividends among the instant distribution schedule.

2. The parties' assertion

A. On April 27, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a move-in report for the instant apartment and resided therein. On April 26, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C, the mother of the Plaintiff, as the mother of the Plaintiff, as to the small Chinese-style partition among the instant apartment.

Therefore, the plaintiff, as a tenant of small amount under the Housing Lease Protection Act, has a preferential right to payment of KRW 14,00,000,000, the total amount to be distributed to the defendant and did not distribute it to the plaintiff.