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

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 9, 2011, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 130,000,00 to C, completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) of KRW 169,00,000 with respect to the instant real estate owned by C on the same day. On November 4, 2013, the Plaintiff was voluntarily decided to commence the auction on the basis of the instant right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”).

B. In the above auction procedure, on July 10, 2014, among KRW 108,668,893, the amount to be actually distributed to the Defendant as a lessee of small amount on January 6, 2014, the distribution schedule was prepared in order 22,00,000, KRW 3020, and KRW 86,194,823 to the applicant creditor (beneficiary) in the second order to the Incheon Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, and KRW 300,720, and KRW 86,194,823 (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against the Defendant’s dividends on July 17, 2014, which is within one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8's statements and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Although the defendant, who is the cause of the claim, knew that the registration of creation of a high-end collateral on the instant real estate was completed, falls under the most lessee who is not entitled to protection under the Housing Lease Protection Act that was concluded a lease agreement of this case to receive a dividend of small-sum lease deposit, and thus, the distribution schedule of this case, which recognized the defendant as a small-sum lessee and distributed KRW 22,00,000, should be revised in accordance with the primary purport of the claim.

Even if not, C entered into the instant lease agreement with respect to the instant real estate in excess of its obligation, which constitutes a fraudulent act and thus ought to be revoked. As such, C’s above distribution schedule should be revised by way of restitution.

B. In a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution, the Plaintiff constitutes a ground for objection against the distribution.