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 July 22, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the instant real estate owned by C, the maximum debt amount of KRW 5,0160,000, and C, the debtor C.

Based on the foregoing right to collateral security, the Plaintiff filed an application for a voluntary auction of real estate with the Incheon District Court B, and the above court rendered a voluntary decision to commence auction on January 4, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant auction procedure”). B.

On October 16, 2014, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement between C and C with regard to the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the lease deposit amounting to KRW 15 million, term of lease from October 16, 2014 to October 16, 2016.

C. On August 22, 2016, on the date of distribution implemented on August 22, 2016, the said court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) with the content that distributes KRW 20,968,812 to the Plaintiff, who is the applicant creditor and the right to collateral security, as a small lessee, among KRW 36,025,552, the amount to be actually distributed to the said court.

On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the amount of KRW 15 million against the Defendant, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on August 26, 2016, which was within one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant is the most lessee, or the instant lease agreement constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, the instant distribution schedule, like the purport of the claim, should be revised to distribute to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 15 million out of the dividend amount against the Defendant.

나. 판단 ⑴ 가장임차인이라는 주장에 관한 판단 ㈎ 갑 제3호증의 2, 갑 제7호증의 1, 2, 을 제4호증의 1, 2의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ① 피고의 배우자 E은 인천 서구 F 대 123.1㎡를 소유하고 있고,...