1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, with the claim claim amounting to KRW 8,780,000 against C, received the Seoul Northern District Court Order 2017Kadan21978 dated August 28, 2017 as to D Borrowing (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The Plaintiff is a provisional seizure creditor who demanded a distribution in the instant case of the instant real estate B real estate auction (hereinafter “instant auction”).

B. On March 13, 2019, the court of auction determined the amount of KRW 55,653,098, which remains after deducting KRW 2,077,830,00 for enforcement expenses from KRW 57,730,928, which shall be distributed to the court of auction, as the actual amount to be distributed, and then prepared a distribution schedule with the content that distributes KRW 23,00,000 to the defendant as the priority lessee.

C. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against KRW 10,042,385 out of the Defendant’s dividend amount, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution with this court on March 19, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 6, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The court of auction by the plaintiff recognized the defendant as the tenant of small claims under the Housing Lease Protection Act and distributes the amount of KRW 23,000,000 to the plaintiff. However, the defendant is the most lessee who falsely prepared a lease contract and is not the true tenant. The distribution should be revoked within the scope of the amount of the plaintiff's claim out of the amount of the distribution to the defendant, and the amount equivalent thereto should be distributed to

B. Even based on all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant is the most lessee, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number), the defendant is a broker G belonging to the F, and the defendant is a broker of G on May 20, 2014 with respect to the real estate of this case between May 20, 2014 and May 19, 2016.