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

A. As of September 10, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction with this court concerning the above apartment on September 18, 2012, with the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage as to the 5th floor of the 2nd floor of the 5nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 3nd unit of the 3rd unit of the D apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On April 12, 2012, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with C on the instant real estate.

C. In the foregoing voluntary auction case, this court drafted a distribution schedule with the order of 92,930,055 won, which is to be actually distributed on July 18, 2013, which is the date of distribution, to distribute the amount of KRW 70,418,405 to the plaintiff of the right to collateral security, in the order of 12,930,05 won, and 119,340 won, in the order of 2nd order to the defendant of the non-party to small claims. D.

The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection to the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on July 22, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] The evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the lease agreement between the Defendant and C constitutes the most recent lease, and even if not, C’s conclusion of the lease agreement with the Defendant constitutes an act detrimental to creditors, including the Plaintiff, constitutes an act detrimental to the obligees, and the Defendant, who entered into the lease agreement with the Defendant with the knowledge of such circumstances, is not

B. In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the Plaintiff did not assert or prove the facts constituting the grounds for objection against distribution, and thus, the obligee who filed an objection against distribution by asserting that the other party’s claim is disguised, bears the burden of proof as to such claim.

(Supreme Court Decision 97Da32178 delivered on November 14, 1997). In addition, the fact that the registration of establishment of a neighboring apartment in the Plaintiff’s future was completed at the time the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C, as seen earlier.