A. On November 13, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement with C on November 13, 2012, and completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over KRW 102,300,000 with respect to the creditor, the mortgagee, and the debtor, the maximum debt amount of KRW 101, 101, 101, Dong-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant real property”).

B. Around July 20, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for the auction of the instant real estate in order to recover the claim for the said loan. The Defendant filed an application for the dividend in the distribution procedure for the proceeds of the sale on the ground that he/she is the top priority tenant in the distribution procedure, and the said court, on June 14, 2018, drafted a distribution schedule to pay the Defendant KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff, who is the applicant creditor, and KRW 68,231,318, respectively, to the Plaintiff, who is the applicant creditor.

C. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against the Defendant regarding the dividend payment, and filed the instant lawsuit on June 20, 2018, which was within one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Defendant cannot be deemed a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act, the Defendant’s dividend against the Defendant shall be deleted, and the distribution schedule shall be revised so that the dividend can be added to the dividends against the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant lawfully concluded a lease contract with Defendant C, and paid KRW 10 million to the director of the instant real estate as the instant real estate in which the deposit was returned from the owner of the previous residence, and completed the move-in report.

3. Determination

A. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection against distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is in accordance with the general principle of allocation of burden of proof in civil procedure. Therefore, in a case where the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's claim has not been constituted, the defendant has the responsibility to prove the grounds