임대차보증금 등
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged based on Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 3, and Gap evidence No. 4, and the whole purport of the pleadings. A.
On August 30, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the instant building owned C (hereinafter “instant lease”) with a deposit of KRW 70,000,000,000 from C (hereinafter “instant lease”).
(However, the lease contract was prepared by the lessee as a representative of the plaintiff as D).
The Plaintiff made a move-in report on September 10, 2012, and obtained a fixed date in the instant lease agreement on March 25, 2013.
C. On August 1, 2013, the Incheon District Court rendered a decision to commence compulsory sale of the instant real estate was rendered to the Incheon District Court Vice-Support E.
(hereinafter referred to as “first auction”) d.
On June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the lease registration (hereinafter “the lease registration of this case”) on the building of this case on July 28, 2014, subject to the order of lease registration (No. 2014Kadan429) rendered by Busan District Court Branch Branch Decision 2014.
E. On March 6, 2015, Defendant Sti purchased the instant building at the auction procedure, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day. On the same day, Defendant B entered into a mortgage agreement (hereinafter “mortgage agreement”) with the maximum debt amount of 70,000,000, and completed the registration thereof.
F. On April 3, 2015, Defendant B received a voluntary decision to commence the auction of the instant building from the Incheon District Court Branch BranchF.
(g) On May 23, 2016, G, who is the Defendant, purchased the instant building at an auction procedure. On May 26, 2016, the Plaintiff cancelled the registration of the instant lease on May 26, 2016.
2. The Defendants’ determination as to the main safety defense by the Defendants has the nature of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit as a demurrer against the second auction, and the Plaintiff is not a legitimate right holder, and the lawsuit in this case is deemed unlawful as there is no legal interest in the lawsuit. However, the lawsuit in this case is filed by the Plaintiff.