A. On April 16, 2013, the Plaintiff leased a building indicated in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “instant building”) with respect to the building as indicated in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “instant building”) from April 27, 2013 to February 26, 2015. A contract is entered into after an on-site inspection as a special terms and conditions, and is a contract after confirmation and explanation of the copy of the register, and other matters are governed by the Civil Act and the Housing Lease Protection Act, and entered into a lease agreement with the authority to receive a move-in report and a fixed date (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and filed a move-in report with the same date, subject to a fixed date.

B. After that, Defendant B’s application, the mortgagee of the instant building, commenced a voluntary auction on July 4, 2013 (hereinafter “instant auction”). The instant building was sold on January 20, 2014 from the said auction procedure. Defendant B was paid KRW 45 million in the order of priority, and Defendant Foundation was paid KRW 20,275,891 in the order of priority, but the Plaintiff was excluded from the distribution schedule even if it filed an application for a report on rights and a request for distribution to the effect that it is a small lessee under Article 8(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act on August 12, 2013, and the Plaintiff did not thereafter object to a distribution.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 3, and 6 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff paid the lessor the deposit of the instant lease agreement. The Plaintiff, who resided in the instant building and paid the water supply tax, electricity tax, urban gas cost, etc., and whose main purpose of the instant lease agreement is to conclude is a small-sum lessee under Article 8(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff was excluded from the distribution of the instant auction procedure. Accordingly, the Defendants obtained unjust enrichment within the scope of the deposit money paid by the Plaintiff, and thus, they should be returned to the Plaintiff.

(b).