주택소액임차보증금에 해당하는 지 여부[국승]
Whether it constitutes a small amount of housing rental deposit;
Since there is no clear proof that the lessee is the genuine lessee who has leased the house and paid the lease deposit, the revision of the distribution schedule based on the premise that the lessee is the true lessee is difficult.
Article 35 (Priority of National Taxes)
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
○○○ District Court’s ○○○○○○○○ in a case of an auction of real estate rent of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in around 2005, the amount of dividends of KRW 20,709,394 to the Defendant Company ○○○○ on the basis of KRW 15,344,095, the amount of dividends of KRW 57,750 to the Defendant Company, the amount of dividends of KRW 57,750 to the Defendant ○○○○○○, and the amount of dividends of KRW 2,163,281 to the Defendant ○○○○○○, respectively, shall be changed to KRW 00,00, respectively, and shall be corrected to distribute KRW 8,000 to the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and there is no counter-proof.
A. On June 28, 2001, the ○○○○○ Association Federation had completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on the housing of ○○○○○○○○○○○○ apartment building ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was owned by the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 66 million as the ○○○○○○○○○○○, and the debtor. As to the housing of this case, the debtor as the ○○○○○○○○○○○, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “○○○○”) made an application for the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the housing of KRW 50 million with the maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million as the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ apartment building hereinafter referred to as the “instant housing”).
B. In the above auction procedure, the Plaintiff asserted that on September 20, 2004, the Plaintiff leased the instant house of KRW 10 million from ○○○○○ on September 20, 2004, and made a demand for distribution of the amount equivalent to the said lease deposit in the above auction court.
C. The instant housing was awarded a successful bid of KRW 91,351,00 in the above auction procedure. On September 26, 2006, the auction court decided to distribute the remainder of KRW 89,407,695 after deducting the auction expense from the total amount of the above sale price and interest. The auction court set up a distribution schedule with the content of allocating the remainder of KRW 2,163,281 in the order of priority to Defendant ○○○○ Cooperative Federation, which is the first (the pertinent tax) and the second (23,34,60,095, and the third (23,634,701, and the third (3) priority to the third (4) priority to Defendant ○○○○ Cooperative, a mortgagee, who is the mortgagee, to deliver KRW 57,750,00 in the order of KRW 57,670, and KRW 670 in the order of priority to distribute the remainder of KRW 2,163,281 in the order of distribution.
D. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution on September 26, 2006, and raised an objection against KRW 5,635,29 of the dividend amount against Defendant ○○○, KRW 57,750 of the dividend amount against Defendant ○○○○, KRW 413,670 of the dividend amount against Defendant ○○○○, and KRW 2,163,281 of the dividend amount against Defendant ○○○, respectively, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the instant objection on September 29, 2006.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The parties' assertion
The plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the head of ○○ and paid the lease deposit amount of KRW 3.7 million on November 30, 2001, KRW 3.3 million on December 1, 2001, KRW 10 million on December 21, 2001, and KRW 10 million on December 21, 2001. Since the moving-in report was made on the instant house on December 6, 2001, the plaintiff was residing in around December 6, 2001. Since it is unfair for the plaintiff to have been distributed out of dividends even though it was a genuine lease as above, the plaintiff asserts that the total amount of dividends against the defendants should be distributed to the plaintiff.
B. Determination
In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap's evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5 and 6, the plaintiff made a move-in report to the housing of this case on December 6, 2001, and prepared a lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million with the landlord as of September 20, 204. The plaintiff transferred 3,70,000 won to the account of head of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 6, which was not a genuine tenant. However, the plaintiff could not be seen to have been paid the remaining one of the housing of this case.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.