2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On October 5, 1996, the Defendant entered into a lease contract (hereinafter referred to as the “instant lease contract”) with the head of Si/Gun/Gu x Gu 】 200-00 ground housing (hereinafter referred to as “instant housing”) with the head of Gu/Si/Gun/Gu x 50 million won as lease deposit, and two-year lease period. On November 1, 1996, the Defendant moved into the said lease contract with the head of Si/Gun/Gu.

B. The defendant, on November 9, 199, issued the attachment order on the amount in arrears of the value-added tax of the △△△△△△△△△△ on November 13, 199, and made the attachment order and completed the attachment registration on several occasions since the registration of the attachment entry into the land and the instant house owned by the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ on November 13, 199 】 was completed on several occasions. The defendant x the Seo-gu Seoul x the defendant x the Seo-gu x the attachment order on October 11, 2005 on the local tax arrears of the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ on October 12, 2005 】 Busan 】 Dong 】 Dong 】 Dong 】 Dong 2 】 Dong 00-000, 00-00, and this housing.

C. On the other hand, on November 2, 2012, Busan District Court 201 】 32118, and 201 】 37328 (Duals), the auction procedure regarding the instant housing, etc. was commenced. The said court, while conducting the auction procedure on September 1, 2013, prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as the “distribution schedule of this case”) that distributes the amount of KRW 53,529,404 to Defendant Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Republic of Korea”) who is the third attachment authority, who is the third attachment authority.

D. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection as to the amount stated in the Defendants’ claim out of the dividend amount, and filed the instant lawsuit on September 17, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-2-1, 2, 3 through 5, and purport of whole pleadings]

2. Summary of the Plaintiff’s cause of claim

The Plaintiff obtained a fixed date on the instant lease agreement prior to the statutory due date of the Plaintiff’s tax claim or local tax claim. Therefore, the Defendants’ claims are subordinate to the Plaintiff’s claim for return of lease deposit, and therefore, the instant distribution schedule ought to be revised as stated in the purport

3. Determination

On the other hand, Article 3-2(2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that "a tenant who has requirements for counterclaim under Article 3(1), (2), or (3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act and the fixed date on a lease agreement document shall have the right to receive a deposit in preference to junior creditors or other creditors from the proceeds of the sale of leased house when he/she conducts an auction under the Civil Execution Act or a public auction under the National Tax Collection Act." Thus, it is reasonable to interpret that prior priority is given to a housing lessee, etc. by granting a fixed date under the legal text of Article 3-2 of the Housing Lease Protection Act as the date of granting a fixed date on a lease agreement document is reasonable in light of the provision that he/she has a preferential right to payment only after granting a fixed date on the legal text of Article 3-2 of the Housing Lease Protection Act.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is without merit. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified.

Each decision shall be made as per Disposition.