1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 25, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 101,400,000 with respect to land E No. 402 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by Nam-gu, Incheon; (b) on December 19, 2013, the Plaintiff voluntarily decided to commence the auction as B of this court with respect to the instant real estate.

B. On March 1, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with C with respect to the instant real estate at KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 350,000 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) and completed a move-in report on March 25, 2013, and received the fixed date on the same day.

C. In the aforementioned voluntary auction case, the Defendant filed an application for a report on the right of KRW 18,250,000 for the remainder after deducting the rent that has been partially unpaid on January 15, 2014, and the instant court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”) with the order of priority 18,250,000 won among the amount actually distributed on July 8, 2014, the distribution date of KRW 84,521,264, which is the date of distribution.

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 15, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap1-5 evidence (including partial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is merely the most lessee who entered into the instant lease agreement with C, and thus, the instant distribution schedule that recognized the Defendant as a small lessee and distributed KRW 18,250,000, should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

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).