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

Cheong-gu Office

Gwangju District Court 2013Tho 0000 for compulsory auction of real estate at the same time on August 2014

12. 작성한 배당표 중 교부권자 ★★세무서에 대한 배당액 00,000,000원을 0,000,000원으로, 원고에 대한 배당액을 00,000,000원을 00,000,000원으로 각 경정한다.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are described in Gap evidence 1 and 2 and before oral pleadings:

the purpose of the body. The body's purpose may be recognized in full.

A. The Gwangju District Court on December 2, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”)

The decision to commence compulsory auction was rendered (2013 M&T 000), and the plaintiff shall pay dividends to the above auction case.

in u. 19,00,000 won for the return of the lease deposit as a small lessee of the apartment of this case

(i) assertion that they are entitled to report their rights and make a demand for distribution;

B. On August 12, 2014, the above court held that the sale price plus interest in the distribution procedure as of August 12, 2014

용을 공제한 실제 배당할 금액 26,925,741원에 관하여, 원고에게 00,000,000원을, 교부권자 ★★세무서에게 13,462,871원을 각 배당하기로 하는 내용의 배당표를 작성하였다.

다. 원고는 2014. 8. 12. 위 배당기일에 출석하여 ★★세무서에 대한 배당액 중

An objection was raised against KRW 0,00,000.

2. Determination

The plaintiff shall pay a certain amount of the deposit of small amount and tax bonds to which Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act applies.

Pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, in the event of competition with rights, a small-sum lease deposit is always available.

The author argues that the total amount should be distributed in advance.

Article 35 (1) 4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be collected in preference to other public charges or other claims, but national taxes or additional dues shall be collected from the proceeds of sale when a house with a lease relationship to which Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act applies is sold.

Of the deposit for lease, the term "claim for a certain amount of deposit which the lessee may be paid preferentially pursuant to the same article is not so in the case of "claim for an amount of deposit for lease"; and

The main sentence of Article 8 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act shall be the lessee who is different from a specified amount of the deposit.

The main sentence of Article 8 (3) of the above Act provides that "the scope and standard of a specified amount of a security deposit shall be determined by Presidential Decree after deliberation by the Housing Lease Committee pursuant to Article 8-2". In particular, the above proviso provides that "However, the scope and standard of a specified amount of a security deposit shall not exceed 1/2 of the housing price (including the price of the site)" and Article 10 (2) of the above Act provides that "a specified amount of a security deposit of a lessee exceeds 1/2 of the housing price, only one half of the housing price shall be the preferential payment right if the specified amount of a security deposit of a lessee exceeds 1/2 of the housing price." Thus, even if the plaintiff's small amount of a security deposit provided for in Article 8 of the above Act and Article 10 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, it shall not exceed 1/2 of the housing price. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the dividend limit of an apartment house against the plaintiff shall not be paid in excess of the dividend amount of the above dividends amount of the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.