1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. In the auction procedure for the public auction case of Sejong District Court (hereinafter “the auction procedure of this case”) with respect to 114 square meters in Pyeongtaek-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “the instant site”), the Defendant asserted in the executing court that it is a small-sum lessee under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act with respect to the instant site for the housing (23.6 square meters in a single floor of the board board board board board board, etc.; hereinafter “instant housing”) and filed a report on the right and demand for distribution as follows.

The date of contract: The date of the moving-in report from September 15, 2009 to September 15, 2011: The date of the moving-in report from September 15, 2009: the fixed date on January 8, 2015: the date of January 26, 2015.

According to the distribution schedule prepared by the court of execution on March 22, 2017, the date of distribution (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”), the Defendant received the dividends of KRW 5,397,874, and the Plaintiff, who is the applicant creditor and the mortgagee, as the lessee with the top priority repayment right, in the lower order.

C. The Plaintiff stated an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 9, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion only prepared a lease contract for the purpose of receiving a dividend in the instant auction procedure, but did not enter into a real lease contract or paid a security deposit as a lessee, and thus, the instant dividend table should be corrected.

B. The Defendant alleged on February 19, 2010, paid the lease deposit of KRW 12 million from E, the owner of the instant housing, and leased the instant housing, and thereafter, the Defendant’s mother-friendly F was living together with the move-in report after completing the move-in report. The Defendant completed the move-in report on January 8, 2015, and thus, is a small lessee of the instant housing.

3. Determination

A. In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection against distribution is general.