1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On July 2015, 2015, the above court with respect to the case of voluntary auction of real estate C by the Gu Government District Court.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus cite it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted by the Plaintiff are the most lessee who concluded a false rental agreement on each of the instant buildings for the purpose of receiving dividends as a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act in the instant auction procedure. Thus, each of the dividend amounts against the Defendants in the instant dividend schedule should be corrected to additionally distribute them to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendants’ assertion is the genuine lessee who concluded each of the instant lease agreements with D for the purpose of residing in each of the instant buildings. Therefore, each of the dividend amounts against the Defendants in the instant distribution schedule is justifiable.

3. Determination

A. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection to a distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer is in accordance with the principle of distribution of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. Therefore, in a case where the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's claim has not been constituted, the defendant is liable to prove the facts of the cause of the claim, and in a case where the plaintiff claims that the claim was invalidated as a false declaration of conspiracy or extinguished by repayment, the plaintiff is liable to prove the facts constituting the grounds for invalidation or extinguishment thereof, but it is reasonable to consider such circumstances in determining whether the defendant's assertion as to the establishment of the claim

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617 Decided July 12, 2007, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da37555 Decided September 13, 2013, etc.) B.

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, the statements mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, and the witness testimony and the whole purport of oral argument.