1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Based on the selective claims added in the trial,

A. Between the Defendant and C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 10, 2008, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 106,000,000 to C, and on the same day, completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage over the D Apartment Nos. 502 of the 2nd, Yecheon-gu, Ocheon-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) with the claim secured against C as the claim secured against C. The Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage over KRW 171,60,000.

B. On April 12, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C and the instant apartment, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 23 million, from May 11, 2012 to May 11, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Defendant completed the move-in report on May 11, 2012, and received the fixed date.

C. On September 18, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction against the instant apartment on September 18, 2012. D.

In the above voluntary auction case, this court prepared a distribution schedule to distribute to the plaintiff of the mortgagee 70,418,405 won to the plaintiff of the right to collateral security in the order of 90,537,745 won to be actually distributed on July 18, 2013, which is the date of distribution, to the defendant of the smallest lessee 20,000 won, 119,340 won, and 3rd priority in order of the non-person with the right to deliver the second priority.

E. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection to the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on July 22, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the lease contract that C entered into with the defendant is invalid as it constitutes the most recent lease, or concluded in excess of debt, and thus, it should be revoked as it constitutes an act detrimental to the creditors, such as the plaintiff, etc., and the defendant's amount of distribution should be deleted as a beneficiary presumed to have been malicious in the above distribution schedule as restitution. Accordingly, the defendant asserted that the defendant is a legitimate lessee for the apartment of this case, and that there was no intention of harm

3...