배당이의
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where “the instant real estate” in Section 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed as “the instant apartment”, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff is the most lessee on the apartment of this case. Even if the defendant actually leased the apartment of this case, the lease deposit is KRW 50 million, and it does not constitute a small lessee subject to protection under the Housing Lease Protection Act.
Therefore, the distribution schedule of this case, which distributed 14 million won to the defendant by recognizing the status of the tenant of small amount under the Housing Lease Protection Act, should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.
B. On November 15, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement between the lessor F (name after the name of the opening) and the instant apartment with respect to the instant apartment, and paid the entire lease deposit.
After that, the Defendant agreed to revise the lease deposit with F around February 2014, to a lease agreement which causes 40,000,000 won per month for lease deposit, as the secured debt of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage, which causes KRW 144,00,00 of the maximum debt amount set forth in the instant apartment, is likely to be unable to be recovered later due to the secured debt of the establishment of a mortgage right.
The Defendant made a move-in report on the instant apartment on February 4, 2014, and obtained a fixed date in the lease contract on February 27, 2014, which caused the lease deposit to be KRW 40 million.
On April 4, 2014, the Defendant reported the move-in to the instant apartment on January 12, 2016, and again made a move-in report to the instant apartment on January 12, 2016. The move-in report on April 4, 2014, which was the third child G was born on the HH date and was received more than the third child’s childbirth incentives, and the facts were continuously resided in the instant apartment for the said period.
Therefore, the defendant shall make the highest repayment.