2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim claim against the limited liability company specializing in the 000-gu vehicle-backed securitization and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the costs of lawsuit are borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendants, and the counterclaim.

Expenses incurred in relation to the Defendant-Counterclaims shall be borne by them.

.

Cheong-gu Office

The main office is as set forth in Paragraph (1).

Counterclaim: The lease agreement that was concluded on June 8, 2013 between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) and Nonparty 00 on 114, 108 (00 dong, 00 dong, 00) - No. 00 - 00 - 57 - No. 114, 57 - is revoked.

(a) Conclusion of a lease agreement;

On June 8, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the owner of the above real estate, with regard to 114, 108, 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 57 - 00 - 57 (00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - , 00 - , hereinafter “the instant real estate”). The Plaintiff entered into the lease agreement with the period from June 25, 2013 to June 24, 2015. The Plaintiff received a move-in report and a fixed date on the resident registration of the said real estate on June 25, 2013.

(b) Claims on loans to 00-00 banks;

On April 25, 2011, Song 00 took out a loan of KRW 000 from Nonparty 00 Association (the amended 00 Bank) to secure the claim for the above loan, and on the same day, set up a collateral security right with regard to the instant real estate as the mortgagee 00 Bank and the maximum debt amount of KRW 000.

(c) Progress the auction procedure;

00 bank filed an application for the commencement of a voluntary auction with a total of 000 won of principal and damages for delay up to the time of the instant real estate as the claim amount, as a result of the decision made on October 16, 2013. In the above procedure, the Plaintiff filed an application for a report of right and a demand for distribution as a lessee, and the Plaintiff filed an application for a report of right and a demand for distribution as a lessee, at 00 c. 0 c. 00 c. 00 c. 00 c. 00 c. 00 c. 00 c. 00 c. 00 c. 00 c. 00 c. 00 c. 00 c.

(d) Preparation of distribution schedule;

In the above procedure, the court excluded the Plaintiff from the distribution of dividends on June 23, 2013, and distributed 00 won, in full, to the Defendant 000-gu Specialized in Asset-backed Securitization Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) who acquired the claim against the Defendant 00-gu Specialized in Asset-Backed Securitization Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”), out of the total amount of the credit, and distributed 00 won to Defendant 00-Gu Specialized in Asset-backed Securitization Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”), who is the holder of the right to deliver the remaining money, 00 won, 00-200, 000 won, and 00-Gu to Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff was present on the date of distribution and raised an objection against each claim amount

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 6, Eul evidence 2 to 6, Eul evidence 1,

Da 1, 2, Ra Nos. 1, 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff, as a legitimate lessee who entered into a lease agreement with Song 00 with regard to the instant real estate and paid a security deposit, is entitled to preferential payment right pursuant to the Housing Lease Protection Act. As such, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant dividend table prepared by the Plaintiff, excluding the Plaintiff, from the dividend, should be preferentially distributed, should be deemed unfair, and seek correction thereof.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the instant distribution schedule prepared by the Plaintiff, excluding the Plaintiff, is justifiable, since the Plaintiff is not a small lessee subject to the protection of the Housing Lease Protection Act. Furthermore, the Defendant Company and the Defendant Republic of Korea asserted that the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Song-young constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditors, and seek revocation as a counterclaim.

3. Determination

A. Whether the Plaintiff constitutes the most lessee

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff is a genuine lessee with respect to the instant real estate, which can be protected under the Housing Lease Protection Act, which has paid the deposit for lease under the instant lease agreement. The evidence submitted by the Defendants and the circumstance asserted through this is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff is the most lessee who is unable to be protected under the Housing Lease Protection Act. There is no other evidence

① In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff: (a) reported the instant real estate along the street and concluded a lease contract; (b) the licensed real estate agent having an office in Incheon, which is not the neighboring area of the leased object, was acting as a broker for the instant lease contract.

② The Plaintiff asserts that the down payment of KRW 00,000,000 for the instant lease contract was paid to the broker, and that KRW 00,000,000 was deposited in the account of KRW 00,000,000. On October 0, 2013, the contract date, the Plaintiff’s husband, transferred the amount of KRW 0,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s account from 00 to 00,000 under the name of 00,000 on October 00, 2013. On the same day, KRW 0,000 was transferred from the above 00 account to the above 00,000.

Meanwhile, as to the source of the above deposit, the Plaintiff asserts that: (a) the Plaintiff borrowed 00,000,000 won in check from *,00,000,000 in cash; and (b) the Plaintiff paid the remainder of the deposit amount to KRW 0,00,000 in cash in possession. As above, there is a financial transaction circumstance to deem that the Plaintiff paid the lease deposit to 00,000 under the instant lease agreement; (b) there is no special circumstance to suspect the source of the lease deposit; and (c) there is no special reason to suspect the source of the deposit,

③ The Plaintiff appears to have actually resided in the instant real estate, such as paying public charges for the instant real estate from the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement. The reason seems to be that the lessor’s family members, other than the Plaintiff’s family members, had been located in the instant real estate, were that the lessor’s family members did not move from the instant real estate to another domicile

④ In light of the legislative intent that allows a lessee who satisfies the requirements under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act to collect a small amount of deposit prior to the prior secured party, etc., a person who acquired a right of lease under the above Article 8 shall have a considerable trust in collecting his/her own deposit, and it is difficult to deem that the mere fact that the registration of restriction on the right to the real estate was completed is difficult to conclude the instant lease contract.

In particular, in the instant case, the market price of the instant real estate as of June 2013, which was based on the date of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, was set at KRW 00,000,000,000. The instant real estate was set at KRW 00,000,000 for the right holder’s agriculture, maximum debt amount, KRW 000,000 for the right holder’s right holder’s property, and KRW 00,000 for the provisional seizure registration of KRW 00,000 for the creditor’s loan, KRW 00,00 for the claim amount, and KRW 00,000 for each right restriction registration or claim amount. In the instant case, even if the ordinary financial institution was a financial institution, the amount of the lease agreement was set at KRW 00,00,00 for the right holder’s property, and thus, the remaining debt amount remains at the time of the conclusion of the lease agreement was sufficiently set at KRW 100,000,00 for each real property.

⑤ Meanwhile, considering the actual condition of the transaction of leasing real estate with a relation of restriction on rights at a lower price than the market price, the existence of collateral security, provisional seizure, etc. established on the instant real estate as seen earlier, deeming that the instant lease deposit was set at KRW 000,000 or KRW 00,000,000, much less than the lease deposit at the time, and cannot be said to be reasonable, on the ground that the amount of the instant lease deposit was set at KRW 00,000,000, which is the lease price at the time.

(6) No special relationship between the Plaintiff and Song 00 is likely to have existed between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, or a claim or obligor prior to the conclusion of the instant lease agreement.

Therefore, the distribution schedule of this case prepared by the Plaintiff, on the premise that the Plaintiff is the genuine lessee, who is entitled to other protection under the Housing Lease Protection Act, is illegal, to exclude the Plaintiff from the distribution of dividends. Thus, the Plaintiff shall distribute 00,000,000 won, which is recognized as the priority repayment right under the Housing Lease Protection Act, to the Plaintiff, and shall delete all the amount of dividends to Defendant 10,000,000, and the amount of dividends to Defendant 152,040,821, which is 142,147,601 won.

3. Judgment on a counterclaim

A. Determination on the exclusion period Do and argument

First, the Plaintiff, on June 23, 2014, knew that the instant lease agreement was fraudulent on the part of the Plaintiff who raised an objection to the amount distributed to the Defendant by the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the said Defendant’s claim for the counterclaim was unlawful by setting the exclusion period as it was filed one year after the said claim was filed. However, it is reasonable to deem that the said Defendant was aware of the fact that the instant lease agreement was constituted a fraudulent act only after checking the developments leading up to the conclusion of the instant lease agreement and the status of the property in the instant case after the lapse of the lawsuit after June 30, 2014. It is evident in the record that the Defendant’s claim for the fraudulent act was filed on June 29, 2014, which was one year after the lapse of the said one year. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s allegation cannot be accepted.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

The above facts and Eul's evidence Nos. 7 through 17, Eul's evidence Nos. 4, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, 00 bank, 00 bank, stock company 00, 00 guarantee fund, the Korea Federation of Banks, the Korea Federation of Banks, the Korea Federation of Banks, and the overall purport of the pleadings, comprehensively taking into account the fact-finding results and the order to submit financial transaction information to loan No. 00, the real estate of this case is the only real estate of 230,000 won. The sale price of the above real estate was formed from 205,00,000 won to 280,691,291 won at the time. Thus, it is recognized that the transmission0 at the time was in excess of the obligation. Therefore, the conclusion of the lease contract between the plaintiff and the plaintiff on June 5, 2013, under the circumstance of over obligation No. 1190, which had been in excess of the obligation.

C. As to the plaintiff's good faith

However, the right of priority repayment under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides a kind of statutory security right that can be repaid in preference to claims secured by mortgages and taxes, etc. on the leased house. Therefore, the debtor's act of setting the right of lease under the above Article on the only house owned by the debtor in excess of debt constitutes an act of offering collateral in excess of debt and causing the reduction of the debtor's whole property. Therefore, the act of establishing the right of lease is subject to revocation of fraudulent act. Meanwhile, in light of the legislative intent that allows the lessee who meets the requirements under the above Article to recover the small amount of deposit in preference to prior secured creditors, etc., the person who acquired the right of lease under the above Article has a considerable trust in collecting the deposit amount. Therefore, rather than ordinary transactions as to whether the lease contract was in excess of debt of the lessor, the presumption of the lessee's bad faith should not be easily reversed, whether the deposit was actually paid, the amount of the deposit, and whether the lease contract was in excess of 201, 2015, 2015.

In the case of this case, as acknowledged earlier, the real estate of this case had already been subject to the right of collateral security and the two provisional seizure. However, even if considering the Plaintiff’s right of lease in light of the market price at the time, it appears that the Plaintiff had sufficiently secured the right of preferential payment against 00 persons sent out of 00, and even considering the amount of other provisional seizure claims indicated in the register, there was the remaining value of the real estate of this case; the Plaintiff actually paid the deposit money and resided in the real estate of this case; the Plaintiff and Song 00 did not know about the transfer of the instant lease; and the circumstances of the transaction being leased at a low level compared to the market price of the real estate related to the restriction on the right of this case, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that at the

Therefore, the claim for revocation of the fraudulent act by Defendant Company and Defendant Republic of Korea cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

If so, the claim of this case is justified and acceptable to the defendant company and defendant Republic of Korea.

Any counterclaim claim shall be dismissed for lack of good cause.