1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on January 8, 2015 by the same court with respect to the auction of real estate C by the Jung-gu District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 14, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) set up a maximum debt amount of KRW 143 million; and (b) a debtor G collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”); (c) on October 20, 201, with respect to the instant building, which was owned by the D Housing Association and owned by the D Housing Association, KRW 102,00,000,000,000,000,000 won; and (d) on the Plaintiff’s application, the voluntary auction procedure was commenced with the District Court C

B. On January 8, 2015, on the date of distribution open on January 8, 2015, the said court drafted a distribution schedule that distributes KRW 1 million to Defendant B, a small lessee, KRW 105,640,00 to Guri-si, the issuing authority, KRW 60,000 to Defendant A, a lessee, and KRW 87,349,864 to the Plaintiff, a mortgagee (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

C. On January 14, 2015, the Plaintiff made an objection to the distribution against the Defendants on the date of the said distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Defendants were the most lessee who entered into a false rental agreement on the instant building, and even if not, Defendant A removed from the instant building and lost the opposing power required under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and Defendant A’s resident registration cannot be deemed as the resident registration on the instant building, and thus, the distribution schedule should be revised.

In addition, the defendant's right assertion against the plaintiff is not permissible because it violates the opposite words and the good faith principle.

B. Determination as to Defendant A 1) In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution as to whether Defendant A is the most lessee, 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 has been disguised, bears the burden of proof as to such claim (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da32178, Nov. 14, 1997).