1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. Upon the ancillary claim:

A. Attached list between the Defendant and B

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 6:

On August 3, 2010, the Plaintiff leased KRW 147,00,000 to B on the same day, and received from B the registration of the establishment of a collateral for the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by B (hereinafter “instant housing”) with respect to the real estate (hereinafter “instant housing”) on the same day, as the maximum debt amount of KRW 176,40,000, and as the debtor B.

B. On May of the same year, when the Plaintiff delayed interest from May 14, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for an auction of real estate rent to this court C with respect to the instant housing based on the aforementioned collateral security, and the same year.

6.2. Voluntary Auction Process was initiated, and the instant housing was sold to D on November 21 of the same year.

C. On January 6, 2015, the said executing court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that distributes the amount of KRW 22 million to the Defendant, who is the lessee of small claims, in the first order of 102,179,038, the amount to be actually distributed on the date of distribution, and the second order of priority to the Plaintiff, who is the applicant creditor, as the applicant creditor, respectively.

The Plaintiff raised an objection to the distribution of the Defendant on the date of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit.

2. The Plaintiff’s primary assertion is that the Defendant is the most lessee, and the instant dividend against the Defendant is unlawful, and the conclusion of a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant subject to protection of the right of priority repayment under the Housing Lease Protection Act is presumed to constitute a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, who is the obligee, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to constitute a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, which is the obligor, and thus, the instant dividend should be revoked the lease agreement between the Defendant and B and its restoration to its original state.

3. Determination

A. Prior to the determination of the primary claim, evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9-1, 2, and 10-13, 10-13, 5