1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff leased KRW 20,000,00 to D at an interest rate of KRW 20,000 per month, interest rate of arrears rate of KRW 2.3% per month, and maturity of reimbursement on May 31, 2017. On the same day, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring apartment with the maximum debt amount of KRW 30,000,00 with respect to the 502 of the 101 and 502th class (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On September 26, 2016, upon the application of Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., the creditor of D, the voluntary auction procedure (U.S. District Court C) commenced with respect to the instant apartment on September 26, 2016. From the date of the open distribution on June 13, 2017 at the above auction procedure, the distribution schedule was prepared to receive the dividends of KRW 230,680, and KRW 110,000 as the lessee for whom the Defendant obtained the fixed date, and KRW 578,028 as the vice governor of the National Health Insurance Corporation, who is the holder of the right to deliver the fixed date, in the first order among KRW 281,584,100, and KRW 230,680, and KRW 3 as the lessee for whom the Defendant obtained the fixed date, and the delivery price of KRW 4,422, and KRW 170,769,974, respectively.

C. The Plaintiff raised an objection against KRW 30,000,000 out of the dividend amount against the Defendant on the date of the above distribution, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the most lessee who does not actually reside in the instant apartment.

B. Determination 1) In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the Plaintiff has to assert and prove the facts constituting the grounds for objection against distribution. As such, the obligee who filed an objection to distribution by asserting that the other party’s claim is disguised, bears the burden of proof as to this in this case (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da32178, Nov. 14, 1997). 2) According to the health account and evidence No. 3, D’s deposit for the three apartment units in May 31, 2016 to the Plaintiff is unreasonable, and the Plaintiff is the lessee’s deposit for the three apartment units in the instant case.