1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 30, 2010, the Plaintiff extended KRW 135 million to C, and completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage at KRW 189,000,000 with respect to the maximum debt amount of KRW 502,00,00,000, the Plaintiff owned D and one parcel E (hereinafter “the loan of this case”).

B. When C delays the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan of this case, the Plaintiff applied for an auction of real estate rent to the Incheon District Court B, and the above court rendered a decision to commence the auction on January 10, 2013.

C. In the above auction procedure, the Defendant filed a report on the right and demand for distribution by asserting that it is a small-sum lessee who paid the lease deposit of KRW 22 million with respect to the loan of this case.

On October 30, 2014, the above court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 68,637,725 to the Plaintiff in the order of 1st priority to the Defendant on the date of distribution, which was conducted on October 30, 2014.

E. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the whole amount of dividends of the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on November 4, 2014, within one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant concluded a false rental agreement on the instant loan to receive a small-sum lease deposit under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and thus, the distribution schedule should be revised to distribute the dividend amount to the Plaintiff KRW 22 million to the Defendant.

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). We examine the following circumstances, i.e., the whole purport of the pleadings, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the descriptions of evidence A Nos. 1 through 4.