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 February 22, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for auction of the instant housing E203 (hereinafter “instant housing”), the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage of KRW 72 million with the maximum debt amount, and thereafter, on August 7, 2013, the Plaintiff rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) regarding the instant housing on August 7, 201, upon the Plaintiff’s application.

B. During the instant auction procedure, the Defendant filed a report on the right and the demand for distribution by asserting that he/she is a small lessee under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act regarding the instant housing at the executing court.

On February 18, 2014, the execution court, at the instant auction procedure, distributed KRW 19,650,509 in the order of first priority to the Defendant who applied for a demand for distribution as a lessee of small claims, and prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”) with the content that distributes KRW 18,185,449 in the order of fourth priority to the Plaintiff who is the applicant creditor and the mortgagee as the right to collateral security.

Accordingly, on the date of distribution, the Plaintiff stated an objection against KRW 19,650,509 on the dividend to the Defendant, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on February 25, 2014, one week thereafter.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 2, 25, and 26 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In the instant auction procedure claiming the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff, the executing court extended the period to demand a distribution on December 27, 2013 at the time when more than two months elapsed from September 16, 2013, which was the first completion period to demand a distribution, notwithstanding the absence of any special circumstances. This is unlawful as it extended the completion period to demand a distribution in violation of Article 84 of the Civil Execution Act, and it is unlawful for the Defendant’s demand for a distribution, which was made between the completion period to demand a distribution and the extended completion period to demand a distribution, as

Therefore, 19,650,509 won in the dividend table of this case against the defendant and 18,185,449 won in the dividend amount against the plaintiff should be revised respectively.