1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 25, 2013, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 125,00,000 to Nonparty B, and completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, which is the debtor B and the mortgagee, with respect to the first and third floors of Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The Plaintiff on March 9, 2015

Based on the right to collateral security, Incheon District Court D's application for auction of the instant building was made, and the decision of voluntary auction was made on March 10, 2015 by the above court.

C. The Defendant entered into a lease agreement with B as of January 12, 2015, which was stipulated from January 26, 2015 to January 25, 2017, with respect to the building of this case, the lease deposit amounting to KRW 25,00,000, and the term of lease from January 26, 2015 to January 25, 2017. The move-in report and the fixed date was completed on January 23, 2015, which was in the process of the said auction procedure, and applied for a report on rights and a demand for distribution to the auction court on April 13, 20

On March 24, 2016, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) that distributes the amount of KRW 114,115,006 to the Plaintiff, who is the applicant creditor, who is a small lessee, in the order of 137,843,106 won to be distributed actually, 22,050,032 won in total, 3rd priority.

E. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and stated an objection to the full amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on March 30, 2016, which was within seven days thereafter.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 3, and 6's statements, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The conclusion of a lease agreement on the instant building between B and B, which was the main debt excess of the Plaintiff’s assertion, is a fraudulent act, and thus, it should be revoked and the amount of dividend against the Defendant should be deleted as its restitution.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is not a fraudulent act, but the Defendant’s conclusion of a lease contract with B.