1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim and the ancillary claim added by this court are all available.

Basic Facts

On August 28, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained a provisional attachment order with respect to D’s claim for indemnity against D as preserved bond, and completed the registration of provisional attachment of KRW 14,144,00 for the above real estate on the same day.

On June 28, 2016, at the request of the National Bank, Co., Ltd., Ltd., the right to collateral security of the instant real estate, the decision to commence voluntary auction and the registration thereof was completed.

On the other hand, between D and D on June 27, 2016, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement stipulating that the instant real estate shall be leased from June 27, 2016 to June 26, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the lease deposit amount of KRW 25,00,000,000, and the lease term of the said real estate from June 27, 2016 to June 26, 2018, and filed a move-in report on the instant real estate on June 27, 2016, and obtained a fixed date in the instant lease agreement.

On April 27, 2017, the aforementioned court: (a) distributed KRW 25,00,000 to the Defendant as the first-class lessee on the date of distribution of the above auction procedure; (b) on the other hand, the Plaintiff made a distribution schedule that did not distribute dividends to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”); (c) the Plaintiff appeared on the said date of distribution and raised an objection against the total amount of KRW 25,00,000 distributed to the Defendant; and (d) filed the instant lawsuit on May 2, 2017, which was seven days thereafter.

[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff asserts that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and the purport of the whole argument of the plaintiff is that the lease contract of this case was concluded in a fraudulent manner, and the defendant is the most lessee, and the defendant is the most lessee, so the distribution schedule of this case under the premise that the defendant is the prior obligee than the plaintiff should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim. In addition, the lease contract of this case should be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act. Thus, the distribution schedule of this case