2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(a) Details of the preparation of a distribution schedule;

(1) On June 1, 1995, Skel Co., Ltd. completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on the Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, 203-5 200.8 square meters and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and received a decision to commence reorganization proceedings from the Incheon District Court on February 10, 200. < Amended by Act No. 6314, Feb. 10, 200>

(2) On March 19, 2003, at the request of the Defendant, the voluntary auction procedure for the instant real estate was commenced by the court around 13024, the Plaintiff filed a report on the right and demand for distribution by asserting that part of the instant second floor of real estate was a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act, who leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 15,00,000,000.

(3) On October 10, 2003, following the process of the above voluntary auction procedure, when the real estate of this case was awarded to Periodical, the auction court, with the amount of 71,146,96 won to be actually distributed on November 27, 2003, distributed the total amount to the defendant in the first order, and prepared a distribution schedule to exclude the plaintiff from the above dividends.

(4) Accordingly, the Plaintiff appeared on the above date of distribution, and raised an objection against the Defendant’s amount of KRW 7,00,000,000, and then filed the instant lawsuit on December 3, 2003.

B. Illegality of preparing a distribution schedule

The Plaintiff: (a) leased part of the second floor of the instant real estate from Park Jongam on August 20, 1993 at KRW 15,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 130,000; (b) around 1999, the Plaintiff increased the lease deposit amount to KRW 25,00,000; and (c) again increased the lease deposit amount to KRW 30,00,000 on June 12, 200. The Defendant, at the time when the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was registered on June 1, 1995 (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14785, Oct. 19, 195); (c) the lessee is the lessee who is the top priority right of KRW 7,00,00,000; and (d) the amount of the lease deposit to KRW 7,000,00,000; and (e) the Plaintiff is unlawful as the lessee’s right of preferential reimbursement to KRW 160,000,005.

2. Determination:

In revising the amount of the deposit of small-sum lessee with preferential right to payment, Article 3(3) of the Addenda of the Housing Lease Protection Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1989, Oct. 195) and Article 2(2) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1989, Oct. 195) provide that the person who acquired the security right before the change in the amount of the deposit of small-sum lease shall be subject to the previous provisions. Therefore, whether the Plaintiff may oppose the status of small-sum lessee in the distribution procedure for the Defendant who acquired the security right on June 1, 1995 shall comply with the statutes in force on June 1, 1995; and at the time, small-sum lessee at the time shall be a lessee of not more than 20,000,000 won, and thus, it should be determined whether the Plaintiff is a small-sum lessee of not more than

On the other hand, if there is an increase or a change in the lease deposit during the continued lease relationship, it is a question of whether the deposit at any time should be the standard for comparison. In conclusion, it is reasonable to see that the time of determining whether the lease deposit is a small lessee as a matter of principle (see, e.g., private day, Civil Code [XV], and 266). Therefore, even if the amount of the lease deposit at the time of the initial lease contract is low and it is a small lessee, if it exceeds the limit due to the increase in the subsequent renewal process, it shall not be a small lessee. On the other hand, even if the amount of the lease deposit is high, and it is below the limit due to reduction in the subsequent renewal process, it is a small lessee.

The Plaintiff asserts that, at the time of the establishment of security interest, the security interest holder’s security interest is KRW 15,00,000, and thus, it should be determined on the basis of whether the lessee is a small-sum lessee. However, in principle, statutory interpretation and application should be based on the current factual basis. If there is a change in the standard amount for small-sum lessee, the transitional provision that requires the person who acquired the security interest prior to the change in the standard amount is merely a legislative consideration to prevent the unexpected loss inflicted on the person who acquired the security interest, and cannot generalize the legitimacy of statutory application based on the past factual basis. As such, the scope of tenant who can oppose the secured interest as a small-sum lessee with a priority right has already been determined at the time of the establishment of the security interest and is also publicly announced by registration. Therefore, it is entirely under the control of the lessee to lose the status of the lessee as a small-sum lessee by increasing the security interest by entering into a new lease contract or renewal of the previous lease contract, and there is no possibility that the lessee may incur losses to the lessee.

Therefore, the issue of whether the Plaintiff is a small lessee who is entitled to preferential payment in relation to the Defendant shall be determined based on the lease deposit at the time of distribution, as of June 1, 1995, as to whether the lease deposit at the time of distribution constitutes a small lessee (20,000,000 won) recognized by the statutes. Since the lease deposit at the time of distribution according to the Plaintiff’s assertion is KRW 30,000,000, the lease deposit at the time of distribution in accordance with the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is no longer reasonable without examining it.

Judge Roster