1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 11, 2012, in order to secure a loan claim against C, the Bank of Korea has received from C a registration of creation of a collateral of KRW 65 million with respect to the apartment of this case owned by it, and the Plaintiff was transferred the collateral security on July 10, 2014.

B. Meanwhile, on June 17, 2013, the Defendant leased the instant apartment from C with a deposit of KRW 22 million, the lease period from July 10, 2013 to July 9, 2015, and paid KRW 1 million on the day of the contract to C with a deposit of KRW 1 million, June 25, 2013, and KRW 20 million on July 10, 2013, respectively.

C. Since then, the procedure for the auction of real estate rent to Suwon District Court B was in progress with respect to the apartment of this case. On September 12, 2014, this court prepared a distribution schedule to distribute the Defendant the amount of KRW 19 million to the Defendant as the first-class lessee of small claims, and to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 11,256,297 as the third-class mortgagee. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and stated that there was an objection against the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on September 19, 2014, which is within one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that, even if the Defendant is the largest lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act, or even if the Defendant entered into an actual lease agreement with C and resided in the apartment of this case, the instant lease agreement should be revoked as an act detrimental to the Plaintiff, which is the obligee, and that the instant distribution schedule should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. (1) First of all, a creditor who has filed an objection to a distribution by asserting that the Defendant is the most lessee and that the other party’s claim is disguised shall bear the burden of proof (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da32178, Nov. 14, 1997), and the defendant shall bear the burden of proof.