1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 27, 2015, the Plaintiff is a mortgagee who completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on the 350,000,000 neighboring maximum debt amount with respect to the Y and I ground-based multi-family house (hereinafter “instant multi-family house”) owned by G as of the Y and I-based multi-family house (hereinafter “instant multi-family house”).

B. On January 8, 2016, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement between G and G, which is 15,000,000 won for lease deposit, 200,000 won for monthly rent, and 11, 200,000 won for lease period, between January 11, 2016 and January 10, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

From January 9, 2016 to January 11, 2016, the Defendant paid G a total of KRW 15,000,000,000 to G via a broker. On January 11, 2016, the Defendant made a move-in report of the instant multi-family house 603, and obtained a fixed date in the instant lease agreement on January 11, 2016.

C. After that, the compulsory auction was conducted regarding the instant multi-family house (the Daejeon District Court’s Branch C, D, E, and F (Dual) and the said court, as the top lessee on the date of distribution implemented on April 13, 2017, distributed KRW 15,000,000 in the order of first priority to the Defendant, and drafted a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) that distributes KRW 33,076,65 in the order of 15th priority to the Plaintiff, a mortgagee, as the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

On April 19, 2017, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the entire amount of dividends to the Defendant among the instant distribution schedule on the date of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit on April 19, 2017, which was within seven days thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1 to 4, Eul's evidence 1 to 5, witness J's testimony, the whole purport of pleading

2. Determination:

A. Although the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is the most lessee based on the false representation in collusion, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is the most lessee based on the false representation in collusion, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant is the most lessee with only the form of lease. Rather, in full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the overall purport of the pleading in the entries in subparagraphs 6-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 6, the Defendant and G on January 8, 20