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

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

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 7 and Eul evidence No. 7:

On July 31, 2012, the Plaintiff leased KRW 50,000,00 to C on the same day, and received from C the registration of the establishment of a neighboring establishment with respect to the fourth floor (hereinafter “instant house”) of the Incheon Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant house”), the maximum debt amount of KRW 60,000,000, and the debtor C and the creditor as the Plaintiff.

B. C does not pay interest on the above loans from December 30, 2012, and the Plaintiff filed an application for an auction of real estate rent on the instant housing based on the aforementioned collateral security with the court B around November 2013.

4. The decision to commence the auction was rendered, and was sold to the Defendant on June 13, 2014.

C. In the instant auction procedure, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C on September 15, 2012 with respect to the instant housing as KRW 20,000,000, and received a move-in report and a fixed date on September 20, 201, and applied for a report on the right and a demand for distribution.

On June 13, 2014, the above court of execution prepared a distribution schedule with the content of distributing KRW 20,000,000 to the defendant, who is the lessee of small claims, in the first order of the amount to be actually distributed except the execution cost, on the date of distribution open on June 13, 2014, and KRW 19,910,801 to the plaintiff, who is the mortgagee of small claims, in the fourth order.

E. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the distribution against the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on June 20, 2014.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the most lessee, or the Defendant’s selective conclusion of a lease agreement with C as a small lessee with the highest priority repayment right in excess of the obligation constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, which is the obligee, and the Defendant’s intent to respect the beneficiary is presumed to be revoked. As such, the instant lease agreement should be revoked. Therefore, the instant dividend ought to be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.