2. Between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and B, as to “No. 2, Dong 504, Dong 2, Dong 504, Sinri-si 2.”

A. From March 31, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the instant apartment from B, to two years from April 20, 2014, the deposit amount of KRW 19,00,000, and the period of KRW 20.

B. B. Before the Plaintiff was leased, three cases of collateral security (total claim amount of KRW 75,600,000), Defendant’s right to collateral security (the maximum claim amount of KRW 29,900,000), Defendant’s provisional seizure (the claim amount of KRW 11,574,459) were registered on the apartment register of the instant apartment register of the Korea C&T Bank.

C. Upon the application for voluntary auction on August 7, 2014 by the mortgagee, the apartment of this case was sold, and the court, on July 7, 2015, apportioned the total amount of the debt to the mortgagee including the Defendant within the maximum debt amount.

The plaintiff completed the delivery and resident registration before filing an application for auction, and requested the distribution of small amount deposit, but was excluded from the distribution of dividends.

【Non-Dispute】

2. The judgment on the claim of the principal lawsuit (whether the Plaintiff is the most lessee) may be suspected of being a genuine lessee in full view of the circumstances alleged in the following (3), but even so, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s lease is false. Therefore, the Defendant should return the money unjust enrichment by the Defendant for the repayment of the Plaintiff’s claim of small-sum deposit which takes precedence over

3. Whether a dispute or counterclaim against the principal lawsuit has been filed (whether a fraudulent act has been filed)

A. Legal reasoning of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides a kind of statutory security right that can be paid in preference to claims secured by mortgages and taxes on the leased house. Therefore, the debtor's act of setting the right of lease under the Housing Lease Protection Act with respect to the only house owned by the debtor in excess of debt constitutes an act of offering collateral in excess of debt, which causes the reduction of the debtor's whole property, and therefore the act of establishing the right of lease is subject to revocation of fraudulent act.

On the other hand, the obligor's bad faith is.