1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the supplement of the judgment, which is emphasized by the defendant in the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Supplementary judgment

A. In light of the purport of the Supreme Court Decision 2000Da58026, 58033 Decided that a lessor has opposing power as a lessee pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have an opposing power based on the instant lease agreement against the Defendant. However, according to the purport of the Supreme Court Decision 2012Da93794 Decided April 8, 2014, the Plaintiff’s delivery and move-in report on the instant apartment was a lawful publication method on the Plaintiff’s right to lease, and accordingly, the opposing power should arise not “i.e., the Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership,” but “the next day”.

In this case, it is reasonable to apply the purport of the above Supreme Court Decision 2012Da93794 in light of the similarity of facts, etc. Accordingly, since the plaintiff did not have the opposing power against the defendant as a tenant, the right of lease of the plaintiff, subordinate to the right of collateral security of the defendant, should

B. Supreme Court Decision 2012Da93794 Decided the Defendant, which presented, leased a house from a bidder who failed to acquire the ownership due to the failure to pay the successful bid price, and the lessee who completed the delivery and resident registration and obtained the right to preferential payment under the Housing Lease Protection Act on the following day.