1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 17, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract between Ansan-si and C, setting the deposit amount of KRW 25 million, from November 3, 2012 to November 2, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) as the term of lease, and concluded a move-in report after receiving a fixed date on November 29, 2012.

B. On May 15, 2013, the Suwon District Court rendered a decision to commence the auction of the instant apartment, which was rendered a final decision on the commencement of the auction of real estate, and on September 15, 2014, the distribution schedule was formulated to distribute KRW 1,016,610, out of KRW 461,078,318, which is the amount to be actually distributed on September 15, 2014, to the Defendant, and KRW 460,061,70, which is distributed to the Defendant.

C. On September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff stated an objection on the aforementioned date of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit on September 22, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 3, and 7, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the party’s assertion argues that the distribution schedule should be revised by allocating the amount of KRW 16 million, which is recognized as preferential payment right, to the Plaintiff as a small lessee. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is the most lessee or the small lessee was abused with the protection provision of the small lessee, and thus, the Plaintiff does not have preferential payment right.

B. In full view of the following, it is reasonable to view that Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 6, the No. 6, the No. 6, the Nonghyup Bank, the Korea Agency, the National Bank, and the Korean Bank as the result of the submission of each financial transaction information, and the following facts recognized by the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff was the most lessee. Therefore, the plaintiff'

1. On September 17, 2012, the instant lease agreement was concluded without a broker. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that it was a contract with the introduction of Pyeongtaek, which was known to the Plaintiff. The date when C entered into the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff.