2006 Ghana 80356 Demurrer

(B) Division mutual savings banks (former Mutual Savings Banks: South Korea Mutual Savings Banks)

In the case of Sungnam-si Subdivision 22 - 2ro venture building

Head of representative director ○

An internal manager ○

1. ○○○ (54 △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△)

Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Salt Chang-dong 298 00000 apartment 1AAS 1AS

2. Bilateral duty (59 △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△)

Seoul Gwangjin-dong 2A - AA

3. Park○○ (69 △△△△ - 2AAAAA)

Seoul Eunpyeong-dong 4A - AA 2A

4. Yellow○○ (50AA - 1AAA)

Seoul Seodaemun-gu Hongdong A - AA

5. Blue House (77△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△).

The Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Hong-dong △△△△△△△△△△ Group 200

May 8, 2007

June 5, 2007

1. Of the dividend table prepared on October 25, 2006, the court corrected the dividend amount of KRW 16,000,000 for each of the dividend amount of Defendant Lee ○○, and B/L for B/L of this case among the dividend table prepared by this court on October 25, 2006, to KRW 3,000,000, respectively, and deleted each of the dividend amount for Defendant Park Il-○, Yellow ○, and Yellow B/L of this case, KRW 16,00,000,000 for each of the dividend amount for each of the above correction and deletion, and distributed each of the above correction and deletion in proportion to the order of claims and the amount of claims of each creditor.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul ○○○○○○○○ Group 10 △△△△△, 20 △△△△△, and 20 △△△△△ (hereinafter referred to as “the apartment of this case”), the first order with the maximum debt amount on March 16, 2004, which is KRW 156,00,000 or KRW 169,000,000, or the second order with the maximum debt amount on April 2, 200, which is KRW 26,00,000,000, or KRW 39,000,000, or KRW 26,000, or 39,000,000.

B. On July 6, 2005, this Court rendered a decision to commence the auction of the apartment of this case (200 - 15 - 65 ) upon the application of the Western Agricultural Cooperatives.

C. Meanwhile, on October 25, 2006, on the date of distribution of the above auction procedure, the court first distributed KRW 16,000,000 for each of the Defendants, who reported to be a small lessee with preferential right under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and then prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as the “instant distribution schedule”) with the content of distributing KRW 854,020,46 to the Seosan Agricultural Cooperative, which is the first secured mortgage.

D. On the date of the above distribution, the plaintiff, 32,00, 26,00, 00 won out of the total dividend amount of 32,00, 200,000 won (each of 13,00,000 won = 26,00,000, 200) and the total dividend amount of 13,00,00 won, and 32,000,000 won out of the total dividend amount of 19,064,325 won (each of 9,532,064, 32, 325 won ± 19,000, 368, 36, 381, 208, 36, 36, 168, 208, 36, 208, 36, 208, 369, 36, 209, 208, 369, 200, 3636, 1, 3636

E. In addition, on October 31, 2006, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants in this court, and the Western Nonghyup also filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution (2006da80424, 80448, 80455).

【Unsatisfy-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-s

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The parties' assertion

As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff asserted that, although the Defendants did not actually rent the instant apartment, they should correct or delete each dividend amount against the Defendants and distribute the money generated therefrom in proportion to the amount of objection raised as above in the instant distribution schedule, inasmuch as they did not object to Kim○ and the lease agreement with Kim○, the Plaintiff claimed that the amount of dividend should be distributed in proportion to the order of claims and the amount of claims of each obligee.

As to this, the defendants are the genuine small lessee, and they claim that they received dividends prior to the plaintiff in the above distribution procedure is justifiable.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 3 through 10, 12, 13, and Eul evidence 1-2, and each entry of Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence No. 4 through 7, Eul evidence No. 2, 4 through 6, and Eul evidence No. 2, 4 through 6 shall not interfere with the above recognition, and there is no other counter-proof.

(1) On April 25, 2005, Defendant Lee ○○○, among the instant apartment 10 △△△ on April 25, 2005, the deposit amount of 28,00,000 won for a period from May 15, 2005 to 24 months, and the two-four months from this case’s instant apartment 10 △△△△.

30. Of the instant apartment 10 units, the deposit for one room is 20,00,000 won, and the deposit for two rooms among the instant apartment 202 units is 30,000,000 won, and the deposit for two rooms among the instant apartment 202 units is 30,000,000 won.

10. From 24 months to August 10, 2004, for 20,00, the deposit for the instant apartment 20,000 won from September 1, 2004, and for 24 months from August 10, 2004, the deposit for the instant apartment 203 on August 10, 2004, the deposit for the instant apartment 1 column from among the instant apartment 203 was created with the content that the deposit for the instant apartment 1 column is leased for 18,00,000 won from September 12, 2004 to 24 months from September 12, 2004.

(2) However, Kim ○-○, however, around the time of the completion of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the Plaintiff’s future, 204.

4. 2. The apartment No. 20 of this case issued a written confirmation to the Plaintiff, stating that the lease contract was not a relationship.

(3) However, the right to move in to the location of the apartment complex of this case was completed until around March 9, 2005, which was more than four months from the date of the above contract, and the date of possession or the lease period of the lease agreement remains as a public space. Defendant Park Jong-○ is much more than seven months from the date of the commencement of possession under the lease agreement. Defendant Park Jong-○ is much more than seven months from the date of the commencement of possession.

9. A move-in report was completed only in 22. A move-in report was completed, and Defendant Yellow ○ reported the right to rent one room among 202 apartment units of this case while demanding a distribution in the above auction procedure. However, such a move-in report was not entered in the lease contract, but it was completed only after five months from the date of commencement of possession under the above contract or January 31, 2005, and it was completed on January 31, 2005. Defendant Yellow Poyalty prepared a separate lease contract as to 20 apartment units of this case adjoining Defendant Yellow ○, which was leased by Defendant Yellow ○, even though they were still unmarried as children of Defendant Yellow ○○○, but the lessee’s notice of lease was delivered to Defendant Yellow ○, which was delivered to Defendant Yellow ○ in the above auction procedure.

(4) In addition, on February 25, 2005, Defendant Lee ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, 298, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said apartment after completing the move-in report with 12A △△△△○, 12A, but on May 26, 2005, he transferred the instant apartment to the said apartment under his own possession on October 26, 2006.

(5) On the other hand, the defendants did not submit objective financial data to this court concerning the preparation or payment of each of the above deposits in the above auction procedure.

C. Determination

(1) According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants actually concluded each lease contract with Kim○-○ and the apartment of this case, and that each of the above deposits is not a legitimate lessee.

(2) However, the defendant Lee ○-○ asserts that he concluded each of the above lease agreements for the purpose of collecting the loans, since he/she had each of the loans and the construction cost claims.

The legislative purpose of the Housing Lease Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") is to ensure the stability of the residential life of citizens by recognizing special cases concerning residential buildings as to the Civil Act (Article 1), and Article 8 (1) of the Act provides that the lessee may be paid a certain amount of the deposit in preference to other secured right holders. In the case of small-sum lessee, even if the deposit is small-sum lessee, it is a large amount of the deposit, and thus, it is reasonable to guarantee the recovery of the deposit even if it harms the status of other secured rights holders. In light of such legislative purpose and purpose of the system, it is an exception to the general provisions of the Civil Act. In light of the above legislative purpose and purpose of the system, even if the obligee entered into a lease contract with the debtor with respect to the house owned by the debtor and resided there at a place after completing the move-in report, if the actual purpose of the lease contract is not the main purpose of using the house, but the lessee actually seeks to recover the claim prior to the mortgagee by being protected as a small-sum lessee, such tenant cannot be protected as a small-sum under the Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2014.

According to these legal principles, even if the above Defendants asserted that they have a claim against Kim ○○, in light of the above facts, in light of the above facts, the above Defendants’ lease agreement was concluded as a means for collecting existing claims, and thus, the above Defendants cannot become a small lessee subject to protection as prescribed by the law. Thus, the above Defendants’ assertion in itself is without merit. (3) If so, the instant distribution schedule based on the premise that the Defendants are a genuine small-sum lessee, as seen above, should be revised by reducing or deleting the amount of dividends against the Defendants and distributing the money generated therefrom to the Plaintiff.

However, as seen above, in the judgment on a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the creditor who is entitled to receive dividends and the amount thereof shall be determined in the judgment on the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, but in the case where it is deemed inappropriate to determine the distribution schedule as the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution continues to proceed with several trials, as in the case of this case, the court of execution shall order re-making the distribution schedule and to take other distribution procedures (the latter part of the same Article). As such, the court of execution shall order the re-making of the distribution schedule as described in paragraph (1) of the same Article, as in the judgment on the decision on the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted because all of the claims are reasonable.

Judges Jeong Jae-in