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

The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1-1-5, Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 2-1 through 30, Eul evidence 3-1, and Eul evidence 2.

A. On the ground of the Hasan-si Hasan-dong, the 1st underground floor and the 5th floor above the ground (number omitted) are constructed. On August 21, 2003, the registration of preservation of ownership of the above commercial building was completed in the name of Non-Party 2, and on the above commercial building, the third floor among the above commercial building was divided into 301 to 310, 401 to 410, and 501 to 510, and the unit building register was completed accordingly.

B. Around June 10, 2003, Nonparty 1: (a) sold the parts corresponding to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (Nos. 304 through 310, 401 through 410, 501 through 510, hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) among the above commercial buildings; (b) sold them in lots; and (c) installed a rain or facility at the above private house; (d) on August 4, 2003, the location and area between Nonparty 1 and the above private house facility was located and located at the 0-5th, 3-5th, 00, 3-5, 3-5, 3-5, 3-5, 40, 10, 40, 200, 40, 200, 40, 300, 40, 40, 300, 40, 40, 40, 30, 40, 3, 40, 4,”

C. On March 30, 2004, Nonparty 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of each of the instant real estate, and on the same day, completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the instant real estate as joint collateral to the Defendant, which was the joint collateral, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 4,700,000,000. On March 16, 2005, at the request of the Defendant, the voluntary auction procedure for each of the instant real estate was initiated on March 16, 2005, under the Suwon District Court Decision 2005Mo90777.

D. On April 15, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a report on the right to claim the return of deposit for lease amounting to KRW 140,00,000 and a demand for distribution with respect to the right to claim the return of deposit for lease amounting to KRW 140,000 among each of the instant real estate at the above auction court, but the said auction court, on May 17, 2006, determined the amount to be actually distributed on the date of distribution to KRW 983,346,559, and distributed KRW 8,87,510 to the Administration of Ansan-si, the applicant creditor and the mortgagee, to the Defendant, who is the mortgagee and the mortgagee, KRW 974,469,089, respectively, and prepared a distribution schedule that excluded the Plaintiff from the distribution.

E. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of the above distribution stated an objection against the Defendant regarding KRW 140 million out of the amount of distribution against the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of this case on May 22, 2006.

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts that in the auction procedure of this case, the plaintiff has the opposing power under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act by leasing part of the 3-5th floor of each real estate of this case before the registration of establishment of a mortgage of the defendant was completed. Thus, the plaintiff has the right to receive a dividend of KRW 140,00,000 in preference to the defendant.

B. As to this, the Defendant: (a) although each of the instant real estate owned by Nonparty 1 was separately registered on the registry by 304 to 310, 401 to 410, 501 to 501-27, the Plaintiff, without specifying the number of the leased parts of the instant case, filed registration by stating only 3-5 stories, stating that “the Ham-dong (number and store name omitted) (△△△△△△△△), the Plaintiff’s business registration is not valid as a publication method to have opposing power under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

3. Determination

A. Whether the lease of this case is subject to the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act

The Commercial Building Lease Protection Act applies to a lease that does not exceed the lease guarantee amount (in the case of the Ansan mountain area, 140,000,000 won) as prescribed by the Presidential Decree among the lease of a commercial building. The fact that the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with Nonparty 1 for the purpose of selling beverages, etc. in the private house, including "bevere II", "bevere food", and "bevere food, beverage, health beverage, soargggggggrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrg

B. Whether the Plaintiff’s business registration is valid as a method of public notice under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act

Even if the plaintiff leased part of each real estate of this case from the non-party 1, it is necessary to determine whether the business operator who leased the building in this case can clearly understand the existence of the right of lease by the third party for the safety of the transaction, since the business operator who leased the building in this case as a method of public announcement under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, and the business operator who prescribed the opposing power as well as the delivery of the building in accordance with the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, has the effect of public announcement of any lease. Therefore, whether the third party who is an interested party can clarify the existence of the business operator who leased the building in this case through public announcement of the data about the business operator registration and lease in accordance with Article 4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

According to the results of fact-finding on the case, even if the defendant, who is a mortgagee of each real estate of this case, was able to obtain data on the plaintiff's business registration and lease from the head of the Ansan Tax Office if he had filed an application for inspection under Article 4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, as an interested party, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case: ① even though each real estate of this case was registered separately under subparagraphs 304 through 310, 401 through 410, and 501 through 510 on the real estate register, the location of the plaintiff's establishment is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff's application for the lease of this case was 3-5 stories because it was stated that it was difficult for the plaintiff to file an application for the lease of this case's business registration under the provisions of the Act on the Protection of Commercial Building Lease, the location and area of the lease object of this case's 3-5 stories because it was indicated that it was difficult for the plaintiff to file an application for the lease of this case's 3-5 stories.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the plaintiff is a tenant with opposing power under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judge Bo Young-jin (Presiding Judge)