1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The same court with respect to the case of voluntary auction of immovable property B by the District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 19, 2013, the Plaintiff granted a loan of KRW 250,00,000 to C, and completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by C on the same day (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. Upon C’s delay in the repayment of the above loan obligation, the Plaintiff filed an application for a voluntary auction of real estate regarding the instant apartment with the Jung-gu District Court B on December 9, 2013, and the decision on voluntary auction was rendered on December 10, 2013.

(hereinafter the above auction procedure based on the voluntary decision on commencing auction is called “instant auction procedure.”

Meanwhile, on January 2, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for a report on rights and a demand for distribution on the ground that he/she is a small lessee who leased the instant apartment from C in KRW 19,50,000.

Accordingly, on August 11, 2014, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule stating that KRW 14,00,000, out of KRW 214,594,513, which is to be actually distributed on the date of distribution, is to the Defendant, who is a small lessee, and that the remaining KRW 200,594,513, which is to be distributed to the Plaintiff, both the requesting creditor and the mortgagee (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

E. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection to the whole amount of distribution to the Defendant, and thereafter, filed the instant lawsuit on August 18, 2014, one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s primary claim is that the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C on the instant apartment. Even if a lease agreement was actually concluded, it was concluded by the Defendant by abusing the protection system of small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act even with the knowledge that it would prejudice the Plaintiff, a creditor, and thus, the Defendant does not constitute a legitimate small-sum lessee.