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. Basic facts

A. The building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) was owned by C. On September 24, 2013, a voluntary auction procedure (Seoul Southern District Court D) commenced on September 24, 2013, and sold to the Plaintiff on February 10, 2015.

B. On January 9, 2013, the Defendant: (a) registered the leasehold on February 1, 2013 upon receipt of the order of lease registration by Seoul Southern District Court 2012Kao24; (b) attached the lease deposit of KRW 70 million with respect to the instant building; and (c) submitted a report on the right and a request for demand for distribution with the following content, along with the lease agreement concluded between the said auction court and C on November 15, 2013.

Deposit for lease: The date of transfer from September 5, 2009 to February 20, 2013: The fixed date: September 1, 2009; the fixed date: December 27, 2012; the date of lease registration: the date of lease registration.

C. Accordingly, on March 12, 2015, the said auction court distributed KRW 25 million to the defendant, who is a small-sum lessee.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. On the ground that the lease contract dated July 16, 2009 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) concluded between the Defendant and C was a false lease contract, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that the right of lease of the Defendant under the instant lease contract does not exist. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation, despite the existence of any more direct means of remedy, such as seeking cancellation of the lease registration completed under the name of the Plaintiff, filing an objection against C, or filing an objection to the grant of the transfer execution clause under the conciliation agreement (Seoul Southern District Court 2013Gadan7190), which was acquired by the Defendant against C.

It is also decided that the plaintiff should cancel the lease registration under the name of the defendant by raising an objection or cancellation against the order of lease registration.