Accordingly, Article 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance was amended as follows.

Of the distribution schedule prepared on June 19, 2008 by the above court with respect to an auction case for the enforcement of a real estate security right, the amount of dividends against the defendant shall be corrected as KRW 2,774,506,681, as KRW 2,774,506,681, KRW 10,12,13,14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 206, and KRW 215,506,681, and KRW 2,74,506,681, and KRW 2,33,44,55,67,9, 10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20, 21,25,

2. Each appeal filed by Plaintiffs 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 22, 34, 23, and 24 and each appeal filed by the Defendant against Plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, and 26 are all dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal between the plaintiffs 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 22, 34, 23, and 24 and the defendant shall be borne by the same plaintiffs. The costs of appeal between the plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, and 26 and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant. The total costs of appeal between the plaintiffs 1, 8 and the defendant shall be borne by the plaintiff 1 and 8.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The amount of dividends against the defendant in the distribution table prepared by the said court on June 19, 2008 with respect to the auction case of real estate (Seoul District Court Decision 2006Ma41,015,506,681 won (2,264,306,681 won), Plaintiffs 27, 28, 29, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 22, 32, 34, 23, 23, and 24 shall be corrected in the amount of the dividend claim stated in the attached Table 1, respectively.

2. The defendant;

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

A. On July 25, 1994, the Defendant lent KRW 3.2 billion to the non-party 1 corporation as a construction fund for rental housing, and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the land of the non-party 1 corporation, Sung-nam-si (hereinafter 1 omitted), which was owned by the non-party 1 corporation, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 4.16 billion, and (hereinafter 2 omitted). On March 21, 2005, the Defendant completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the land of KRW 4.16 billion, and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on February 2, 2006.

B. On March 17, 2006, the Defendant applied for a voluntary auction of real estate on the basis of the foregoing right to collateral security on ○ apartment, Daejeon District Court Decision 2006Ma4181 (2004Ma20196), and the decision on commencement of auction was completed on March 23, 2006, and on March 23, 2006, the registration of the voluntary decision on commencement of auction was completed.

C. On June 19, 2008, the Daejeon District Court: (a) drafted a distribution schedule that distributes the remaining 3,015,506,681 won to the Defendant, among the 3,749,550,591 won to be actually distributed on the date of distribution, to the lessee and small tenants having preferential rights to payment under the Housing Lease Protection Act; and (b) the remaining amount to be distributed to the distribution authority (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

D. Meanwhile, in around 195, Plaintiffs 12 and 25 concluded a lease contract with Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. and completed a move-in report with respect to each of the relevant apartment units listed in the separate sheet No. 2 as indicated in the separate sheet No. 13 million won, and thereafter maintained the resident registration as shown in the separate sheet No. 2 with the fixed date obtained on or before March 21, 2005, which is the date of establishment of the right to collateral security in the name of the Defendant for ○○ apartment. The rest of the plaintiffs leased each of the relevant apartment units listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list No. 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act from Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. to the first lessee with the opposing power under Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act or the subsequent lessee, and completed a move-in report with respect to each of the above apartment units listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list No. 1305,200,000 won or more.

E. However, when the Plaintiffs were to demand a distribution as either a lessee or a sub-lessee who has preferential right to payment in the distribution procedure, but failed to have been distributed on the date of distribution, the Plaintiffs stated an objection identical to the entries in the purport of the claim, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution within seven days thereafter.

【Ground of recognition】 In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1-9, Gap evidence 12-2, Gap evidence 17-80, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2 (including each number), the fact-finding results with respect to the new Dong-dong new Dong-dong Dong in the first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff 12 and 25 are the first lessee who has entered into a direct lease agreement with the owner non-party 1 corporation, and the other plaintiffs are the lessee, transferee or lessee who has acquired the right of lease from the first lessee, and the plaintiffs use the right of lease as their residence until now after moving into each apartment, and meet the requirements for preferential repayment after completing resident registration before the date of the registration of the decision on commencing auction ( March 23, 2006) and they are small lessee or small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act since the above requirements continue to exist by the expiration date of the request for distribution ( June 20, 2006). Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to preferential repayment in full, and the fixed date is later than the date of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the ○○ apartment ( March 21, 2005), or the plaintiffs who do not have a fixed date, have the right to receive preferential reimbursement pursuant to Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act. Nonetheless, the distribution schedule in this case is not made to the plaintiffs and thus unlawful.

B. Determination

1) As to the claim of the plaintiff 12 and 25 (each of the first lessees is referred to)

A) Plaintiff 12

After the above plaintiff transferred ○○ apartment 101 Dong 1201 as 1201 on July 8, 1997, the plaintiff transferred Dosan-si on November 17, 2005 and sublet 2 to non-party 2 and maintained her resident registration through non-party 2 in the sub-lessee until the present time is as seen above.

However, according to Gap evidence 4-9, it is recognized that the non-party 2 maintained his resident registration from 101 to 1201 on the above 0-party 2's transfer of the apartment house to Incheon on November 18, 2005. Thus, the above plaintiff had maintained his resident registration prior to the date of registration of the non-party 2's commencement decision on the non-party 3's transfer of the above 0-party apartment house through the non-party 2, and such resident registration continues to exist until June 20, 2006. In the case of the above 0-party apartment house, the right of lease or sub-lease is prohibited in principle by Article 13 of the Rental Housing Act, but the right of lease or sub-lease is exceptionally permitted if the plaintiff intends to move to the above 20-party apartment house before the above 20-party 2's transfer of the right of lease or sub-lease without the consent of the non-party 2's transfer of the right of lease or sub-lease.

B) Plaintiff 25

As seen above, the above plaintiff maintained his resident registration from the date of transferring ○ apartment 101 Dong 607 to December 17, 2004. Thus, the above plaintiff maintains resident registration requirements from March 23, 2006 to June 20, 2006, which is the date of the registration of the decision on commencing auction against ○○ apartment. Thus, the above plaintiff is entitled to receive dividends in preference to the defendant as a tenant of small amount, and further, the above plaintiff was issued a fixed date prior to March 21, 2005, which is the date of the establishment of the right to collateral security under the name of the defendant as to ○ apartment. Thus, the above plaintiff is entitled to receive dividends in preference to the defendant as to 13 million won of the above apartment as a tenant of the fixed date date.

2) As to the remaining plaintiffs' claims

A) From among the rest of plaintiffs 12 and 25, plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 26 belong to the transferee or lessee of the right of lease. However, since the first lessee and related lessee move to the Si/Gun, other than the ○ apartment, the location of the apartment, due to work, life, etc., they are entitled to receive the right of lease as equal to the first lessee of 2,00,000, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 206, 16, 206, 206, 205, 16, 206, 206, 16, 206, 206, 3, 206, 1.

B) Meanwhile, Plaintiff 1, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 8, 22, 32, 22, 34, 23, and 24 among the lessee or the lessee, cannot be viewed as a legitimate lessee or lessee under the Rental Housing Act because it is difficult to ascertain the matters of transfer or entry of the first lessee or the related lessee, or the first lessee or the related lessee, leaving the ○ apartment site as the location of the ○○ apartment site, and the transfer or sub-lease of the right of lease to the above plaintiffs due to the transfer or sub-lease of the right of lease to another Si/Gun due to reasons such as work, life, business, etc. (only one of the first lessee or the related lessee is the location of the ○○ apartment complex, and the plaintiffs cannot be regarded as the legitimate lessee or sub-lease.)

Therefore, the above plaintiffs' assertion is without merit without further review of the remaining points.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Defendant’s assertion

1) Since the former lessee cannot directly claim the return of the sub-lease deposit to the owner of the house who is the lessor, among the plaintiffs cited above, the former lessee cannot be preferentially reimbursed the sub-lease deposit from the successful bid price, which is the proceeds from the sale of the house.

2) Furthermore, in the case of rental housing such as ○○ apartment, as a matter of principle, the transfer or sub-lease of the right of lease is prohibited pursuant to Article 13 of the Rental Housing Act, and the case prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as exceptional cases where the owner of the right of lease or the lessee intends to withdraw to another Si/Gun due to reasons such as work or occupation, etc., and only where the lessor’s consent is obtained, the transfer or sub-lease is allowed. Therefore, the Plaintiffs, among the above cited Plaintiffs, who are the transferee or lessee of the right of lease or the lessee, are inappropriate to acquire or sub-lease the right of lease of each of such apartment unless they obtain the consent of the non-party 1 corporation, the lessor. Therefore

3) The ○ apartment was constructed only after the Defendant established a right to collateral security on the site. In such a case, the above Plaintiffs’ right to preferential payment is not recognized as to the successful bid price for the part of the site of ○ apartment.

B. Determination

1) As to the allegation in the above 1)

Since the right to preferential repayment of small-sized lessee who has borrowed a house from a small-sized lessee has become a strong right in the nature of real right under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, it should be interpreted that the small-sized lessee has the same right as the small-sum lessee with regard to the right to claim the return of deposit in light of such strong legislative intent for the protection of ordinary people. Therefore, in the case of a sub-lease of a house, the sub-lease is legitimate and the sub-lease is a small-sized lessee with the right to preferential payment, and the sub-lessee is also deemed a small-sum lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act, so this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

2) As to the allegation as to the above 2)

In the case of the rental housing such as ○ apartment, as a matter of principle, the transfer or sub-lease of the right of lease is prohibited pursuant to Article 13 of the Rental Housing Act, and exceptionally, the transfer or sub-lease is allowed only in the case prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as the case where the lessor intends to move out to another Si/Gun due to work, living, etc., and only in the case where the lessor’s consent is obtained. This is as seen earlier, the transfer or sub-lease of the right of lease is allowed. The case of the Plaintiff 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 26, there is no explicit consent of the non-party 1 corporation which is

However, in light of the evidence cited earlier, Gap evidence 10, Gap evidence 11-5, and non-party 3's testimony of the court of first instance, the non-party 1 corporation was dissolved on November 17, 1995, and the completion of liquidation on December 2, 2002, respectively. On January 7, 2008, the non-party 1 corporation notified the plaintiffs that the non-party 1 corporation transferred the rent claim arising from the standard lease contract date with the above plaintiffs to the non-party 4. Accordingly, the non-party 4 was acknowledged to have received a provisional seizure order on January 18, 2008.

In full view of the above facts, although the first lessee or the above plaintiffs did not obtain their consent due to the repayment of non-party 1 corporation at the time of the transfer of the right of lease or sub-lease, the non-party 1 corporation did not have any clear location due to the default, nor did it find any circumstance that the non-party 1 corporation seeks to terminate the lease by taking into account such transfer of the right of lease or sub-lease even after the transfer of the right of lease or sub-lease as above. Rather, the non-party 1 corporation, a lessor, transferred the right of lease or sub-lease to the above plaintiffs to a third party, cannot be deemed as the transfer of the right of lease or sub-lease to the non-party 1 corporation, the lessor, and rather, it is reasonable to deem that the non-party 1 corporation recognized the above plaintiffs as a legitimate lessee or sub-lease and consented to the transfer of the right of lease or sub-lease by impliedly transferring the right of lease to the above third party.

Therefore, the above plaintiffs are legitimate right of lease assignees or sub-lessees pursuant to Article 13 of the Rental Housing Act. Therefore, the defendant's assertion on this part is without merit.

3) As to the allegation as to the above 3

On July 25, 1994, the fact that ○ apartment was constructed after the Defendant created a right to collateral security on the site is as stated in the foregoing paragraph 1-A. However, even in the case of a newly-built ground building after the establishment of a mortgage on the site, even if it is a small lessee of the site, there is no right to preferential reimbursement regarding the site. However, in the case of a en bloc auction of the site and a building on the ground, the lessee with the opposing power is naturally entitled to preferential reimbursement from the proceeds from the sale of the building from the proceeds of realizing the building, and in the case of a small-sum lessee who

Therefore, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 84 through 86 (including each number), the plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26 are recognized as having been prior to the registration date of the establishment of the defendant's root as the lessee or sub-lessee of the fixed date registry, and therefore, the above plaintiffs are entitled to receive a full repayment of the deposit amount.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs 6 and 15 do not correspond to the sub-lessee of the fixed date but they are entitled to preferential reimbursement within the limit of 1/2 of the housing price as seen earlier because they fall under the sub-lessee of the small amount, and according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence 84-6 and 15-15, their respective lease deposits are recognized to be within the limit of 1/2 of the housing price. Thus, the above plaintiffs are entitled to preferential reimbursement for each of the above lease deposits.

All of the defendant's arguments are without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, there is no error in the preparation of a distribution schedule that does not distribute to the plaintiffs 1, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 8, 22, 34, 23, and 24 among the distribution schedule of this case. Since there is an error in the preparation of a distribution schedule that does not distribute to the remaining plaintiffs, the amount of 3,015,506,681 won against the defendant in the distribution schedule of this case is 2,74,506,681 won (= 3,015,50,506, 681 won - total 241,00,00,000 won for the plaintiffs 2,32,30,40,610, 261, 2, 361, 2, 36, 10, 12, 13, 15, 216, 217, 216

[Attachment 1 and 2]

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)