1. If a lessee who has entered into a lease contract with respect to a house has completed the resident registration and the delivery of the house, there is an opposing power against the third party from the following day, and the lessee who has the fixed date in the lease contract certificate has the right to be paid the deposit in preference to the junior creditor, etc. at the time of auction under the Civil Execution Act. In addition, even in cases where the lease contract with opposing power and preferential right to payment is renewed, the opposing power and preferential right to payment under the initial lease contract are maintained within the scope of the previous lease contract (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu1377, Aug. 14,

2. According to the facts found by the first instance court, as cited by the court below, the Defendant: (1) on March 31, 2003, leased the building of this case with the lease deposit of KRW 48 million from March 31, 2003 to March 31, 2005; (2) on April 1, 2003, upon completion of the resident registration transfer report; and (3) on April 2, 2003, upon completion of the first lease contract (hereinafter “the first lease contract of this case”); (4) on March 31, 2005, the lease contract of this case was renewed on March 31, 200, from March 31, 2005 to March 31, 2007; and (4) on March 20, 2005, the Defendant received the first lease contract of this case from March 31, 2005 to March 31, 2007 (hereinafter “the expiration date of the lease contract of this case”).

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, since the second lease contract of this case was prepared upon the renewal of the first lease contract of this case, only the period is the same as the parties, objects, and the amount of deposit, etc., so the opposing power and preferential repayment right under the first lease contract of this case are maintained as they are. Although the defendant submitted the second lease contract of this case while he demanded distribution, the defendant asserted the transfer of resident registration under the first lease contract of this case and the delivery date of house in the application for demand for distribution, etc., it can be deemed that the defendant asserted the preferential repayment of the deposit amount paid and maintained under the first lease contract of this case, and the submission of the first lease contract of this case after the completion date of demand for distribution is only permissible (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da68756, Jan. 30, 2009).

In this purport, the judgment below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 88(2) of the Civil Execution Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)