2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On March 22, 1995, the Plaintiff leased the real estate stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter in this case apartment) from Nonparty 1 in the lease deposit amount of KRW 33,000,000, and completed the resident registration transfer report on March 22, 1995, and obtained a fixed date from the lease contract on July 4, 199.

B. Since then, the plaintiff filed an application for a compulsory auction (case number omitted) with respect to the apartment of this case with respect to the creditor (the plaintiff seems to have been a final judgment on the claim for return of lease deposit), and subsequently made a demand for distribution. However, as a result of the plaintiff's receipt of the total amount to be distributed by the senior right holders established prior to the date when the fixed date was granted, the plaintiff was unable to fully recover the lease deposit in the above distribution procedure (the plaintiff did not have a senior right holder at the time when the transfer of resident registration was completed as the apartment of this case, so the lease of this case constitutes a lease with opposing power. Meanwhile, in the above auction procedure, the non-party

C. At another time, the plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction on the apartment of this case (case number omitted), but the above court held that the plaintiff cannot be distributed as a tenant with preferential payment right in the second auction since the plaintiff exercised preferential payment right in the above first auction, and recognized the plaintiff as the last right holder in the second auction and prepared a distribution schedule as shown in the attached Form on January 29, 2004 (the above auction procedure was awarded by Nonparty 3 as successful bidder in the apartment of this case).

D. However, in the auction procedure pursuant to Article 3-5 of the Housing Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 5641 of Jan. 21, 1999), in case where the lessee fails to receive the full refund of the lease deposit, the lease is not extinguished, and the lessee is still able to exercise the right to preferential reimbursement for the lease deposit which has not been recovered from the subsequent auction on the leased object. Therefore, the distribution schedule prepared by the court in the second auction procedure shall be modified as stated in the purport of the claim (the remaining creditors who have priority over the plaintiff's lease shall not be entitled to any other creditors who have been distributed in the auction procedure).

2. Judgment

Article 3-5 of the Housing Lease Protection Act (Article 3-5 of the Housing Lease Protection Act is a provision newly established in order to support the previous Supreme Court precedents, and the tenant's preferential right to payment still exists after the successful bid of the leased object. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the tenant's preferential right to payment exists after the successful bid of the leased object. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the tenant's preferential right to payment exists after the successful bid of the leased object has been successful bid of the leased object in the first auction procedure can no longer be claimed as a result of the first auction procedure, regardless of the fact that the tenant's right to repayment was completed on March 22, 1995 after the move-in report of the date of the first auction on July 4, 195, and the tenant's right to preferential payment cannot be claimed as a result of the first auction procedure, and the tenant's right to repayment and the right to preferential payment cannot be claimed as a result of the first auction procedure until the date the successful bid was returned.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, even in the second auction procedure, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants, which is premised on the fact that the plaintiff still can exercise the right to preferential payment as a tenant, is dismissed in its entirety, and it is so decided as per Disposition (the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Na-si is dismissed as well as the defendant Na-si, since the plaintiff'

[Attachment Omission of Distribution Schedule]

Judges Min-young