The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Since the right to the highest repayment of the small amount of the deposit under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act grants a kind of statutory security right that can be repaid in preference to claims secured by a mortgage on the leased house or tax claims, even in cases where the debtor establishes the right to lease the leased house, if there are circumstances such as the only property owned by the debtor and the debtor establishes the right to lease in excess of his/her obligation, such act may be subject to the revocation of fraudulent act, which causes a decrease in the debtor's gross property

(1) The Supreme Court Decision 2003Da50771 Decided May 13, 2005 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da50771, May 13, 2005). It should be reasonably determined by comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) whether a lessee is a beneficiary of good faith; (b) whether the deposit was actually paid; (c) whether the amount of the deposit was reasonable; and (d) whether there was any circumstance to suspect the lessor’s excessive status of obligations in relation

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da20222, Aug. 23, 2012). The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on adopted evidence, and determined that the conclusion of the instant lease constitutes a fraudulent act as a security in excess of debt, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant is a legitimate small lessee and a bona fide beneficiary on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the Housing Lease Protection Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is decided by the assent of all participating Justices.