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 August 10, 2012, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 145,00,000 to D, and as a security, obtained a second-class collective security right with respect to the E apartment No. 206-dong, Seoyang-gu, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by D, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 188,50,00.

B. On December 14, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with D as of KRW 29,00,000 (contract amounting to KRW 27,000,000, the remainder of KRW 27,000), and from January 4, 2013 to January 4, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and completed a move-in report on January 7, 2013, and obtained a fixed date on April 10, 2013.

C. However, according to the request for auction by Hyundai Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., the first mortgagee (the highest mortgagee 264,000,000 won) with respect to the apartment of this case, the registration of entry following the decision to commence real estate rent was completed on March 27, 2013. The above apartment was sold at the above auction procedure (hereinafter “the auction procedure of this case”) and the distribution schedule was prepared on February 13, 2014. Of the amount to be actually distributed, 22,00,000 won out of 272,220,662 won was the small lessee for the apartment of this case, and the remainder was distributed to the Defendant who filed a report on the right and demand for distribution in the first order, and the Plaintiff, the fourth debtor was distributed to the Busan East-gu Office and Hyundai Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., the second debtor was distributed to the Plaintiff.

On February 13, 2014, the Defendant resided in the apartment of this case and transferred the apartment to FF.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1-1 to 4, and purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the primary cause of claim of this case, and the defendant paid the actual deposit for the purpose of residence with respect to the apartment of this case, and intends to gain unjust profits by abusing the Housing Lease Protection Act instead of the tenant who has resided therein.