1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. As to the real estate stated in the separate sheet between the Defendant and B, June 2013.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 28, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on D apartment 117 Dong 1103 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with respect to Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, 117 Dong 1103 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On June 25, 2013, the Defendant: (a) leased the instant real estate from B with a deposit of KRW 22.5 million; (b) from July 20, 2013 to July 19, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease”); (c) paid the deposit of KRW 5 million on the same day; and (d) the remaining deposit of KRW 17.5 million on July 15, 2013; and (e) completed a move-in report on July 15, 2013.

C. On November 6, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for a voluntary auction to Busan District Court Branch C for the instant real estate on November 7, 2013, and decided to commence the auction on November 7, 2013. The appraised amount of the instant real estate was KRW 290,000,000. However, when the instant real estate was sold at KRW 233,560,000 on the date of sale, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes KRW 19,000 to the Defendant, who is a small lessee, and KRW 211,056,30 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

As to the instant real estate, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage-backed savings bank (hereinafter “B”) was completed on April 26, 201, the maximum debt amount of KRW 33,800,000,000 for the instant real estate, and the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage-backed savings bank (hereinafter “B”) was completed on August 12, 2013. On August 12, 2013, Incheon District Court 2013da84838, upon receipt of the order of commencement on November 25, 2013, B’s creditors reached at least 18.

[Ground of Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and 13, and the result of this court’s order to submit financial transaction information to Korea Post

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion is merely a disguised tenant with the appearance of a housing lessee for the purpose of receiving a distribution as a lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act, rather than a person with sufficient property, who has leased the real estate in this case for the purpose of residence.