1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. C was the owner of the Nam-gu Incheon apartment No. 114, 1902 (the instant apartment).

B. On October 6, 2008, the Plaintiff is a mortgagee who completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 252,000,000 with respect to the apartment of this case.

C. On May 23, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for a voluntary auction on the apartment of the instant apartment and rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction. D.

On July 24, 2013, the defendant asserted that he was a small lessee at the above auction procedure, and filed a report on the right and a request for distribution.

E. On June 10, 2014, on the date of distribution of the above auction procedure, a distribution schedule of KRW 20,000,000 against the Defendant, and KRW 213,484,560 against the Plaintiff was prepared, and the Plaintiff raised an objection against the entire amount of dividends against the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, evidence A1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant is the most lessee who prepared a lease contract for the purpose of receiving a dividend in the auction procedure, and thus, the Defendant’s dividend amount of KRW 20,000,000 against the Defendant is KRW 0,000, and the dividend amount of KRW 213,484,560 against the Plaintiff is 23,484,560, respectively.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 3 through 8, and No. 1 through 4, the Defendant concluded a lease contract with the term “25,000,000, and the term of lease from March 8, 2003 to March 7, 2015” with respect to one of the apartment units of this case, the Defendant concluded a lease contract with the term of “3 to 25,000,000,” and completed the resident registration with the fixed date in the lease contract and commenced the residence with the delivery.

Thus, since the defendant is a true tenant, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.