1. The request is dismissed.

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

1. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff’s wife C loaned the instant real estate from D on July 4, 2014, 70 million won out of the deposit 100 million won, and 30 million won was provided by the Plaintiff. 2) D agreed with the lessee to pay the Defendant’s loan obligations and cancel the right to collateral security.

3) While the lessee’s family member has believed and been living in the belief that D performed the agreement, the auction was conducted, and the register was confirmed. As such, on February 2, 2015, including the Defendant’s right to collateral security, 20 million won of the maximum debt amount and 60 million won of the maximum debt amount on February 5, 2015, including the Defendant’s right to collateral security, the right to collateral security was established on February 5, 2015. (iv) As the Plaintiff’s right to collateral against D, the Plaintiff would make a new lease agreement on April 1, 2015, and obtained a fixed date on May 1, 2015, by preparing a written contract with the deposit of 30 million won.

5 The Plaintiff was registered as a resident on August 18, 2014 and has continuously resided around that time, obtained the fixed date, and paid 30 million won with a security deposit, and thus a certain amount of the security deposit should be preferentially paid as a small lessee.

2. Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the lease of KRW 100 million is merely the lease of real estate in which the Plaintiff resided as the lessee C, and the lease of KRW 30 million with the deposit of the Plaintiff as the lessee does not exist separately from the lease of KRW 100 million.

The lease of the plaintiff is made on documents by preparing and delivering a contract for convenience in order to make the plaintiff receive a dividend even for a small amount deposit.

3. The claim for conclusion is groundless.