원고는 전세권자로부터 전차한 것이지 전세권설정자와 전세 또는 임대차계약을 체결한 것은 아니므로 증액한 부분에 대한 우선변제권이 없음[국승]
The plaintiff is not to have the right to preferential payment for the increased portion because it was prior to the person having chonsegwon, but not to have concluded a lease or lease contract with the settlor of chonsegwon.
The plaintiff did not conclude a lease contract with the owner of an apartment who is a lessor because it was the former owner of a right to lease on a deposit basis, and the former owner does not have the right to preferential payment for the increased portion of lease on a deposit basis.
Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
2015 grouped 6704 Demurrer against distribution
United StatesA
Korea
July 23, 2015
August 27, 2015
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Cheong-gu Office
Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on April 16, 2015, the amount of dividends to the defendant shall be deleted, and KRW 4,265,049 shall be corrected to distribute to the plaintiff KRW 4,265,049, out of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on April 16, 2015, regarding the case of an application for a real estate auction in the Daejeon District Court's 2014T
1. Facts of recognition;
A. With respect to ○○○○○-gu, ○○○○○○-gu, ○○○○○, ○○-gu, 393-17, and 1 parcel of land, ○○ apartment No. 000, 000 (hereinafter “instant apartment”), the Daejeon District Court registered the establishment of the Daejeon District Court, and the ownership transfer registration was made under the name of KimBB as of October 22, 2002 at the receipt of No. 87284 on October 22, 2002.
B. On April 6, 2007, the CDR entered into a real estate lease agreement between KimB with respect to the apartment of this case, which is 20,000,000 won for the lease deposit, and from April 28, 2007 to April 7, 2009, with respect to the term of lease, and entered into a lease agreement between Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, as the registration of support for the Incheon District Court, and as the receipt of No. 43459 on April 30, 2007, the “DD, 20,000,000 won for lease on a deposit basis, the entire duration of residential buildings, and the entire duration of residential buildings,” as the establishment registration of chonsegwon, from April 28, 2007 to April 27, 209.
C. On April 30, 2007, the Plaintiff moved into the instant apartment on the same day with the permission of the DoD, and thereafter resided after making a move-in report at the instant apartment’s domicile on the same day.
D. As to the instant apartment, on July 22, 2014, upon the application of the mortgagee-mortgaged agricultural cooperative, the procedure for the auction of real estate was initiated on July 22, 2014 with the Daejeon District Court’s Daejeon District Court’s 2014ta-12361, and the auction court set the type of demand for distribution in the said auction procedure on September 30, 2014.
E. On September 24, 2014, as a lessee of the instant apartment, CD filed a report on the right and demand for distribution with the amount of KRW 25,00,000,000, as the lessee of the instant apartment.
F. From KRW 39,409,512 to be distributed on April 16, 2015, the auction court distributed the total amount of KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant (North Incheon Metropolitan City Tax Office) in the second order among the remaining money distributed KRW 15,144,463 to the Jung-gu Agricultural Cooperative, which is the first order.
G. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised the instant lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 5, Eul No. 1
1-1, entry of evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The plaintiff is a lessee of the apartment of this case. At the request of KimCC, the plaintiff paid additional KRW 5,00,000 to KimCC on May 24, 2012 with a view to increasing the lease deposit under the above lease agreement, so at least KRW 5,00,000 shall have preferential right to payment. Thus, the distribution schedule of this case shall be corrected as stated in the purport of the claim.
B. Determination
The statements in Gap evidence 3-3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2-1, 5-11 are as follows, apart from the fact that the plaintiff can assert the rights of the tenant or sub-lessee with respect to the apartment of this case as the tenant or sub-resident based on the internal relations with the Dod's internal relations, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff has a preferential right to payment because it has an external opposing power against the part of 5,00,000 won, which was entered into a lease agreement with the Dod's KimCC, or additionally remitted by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.