Title
Lease contract between a lessor and a lessee, who are a delinquent taxpayer, is a genuine lessee entitled to preferential payment.
Summary
It is reasonable to view that a lease contract for a lessor who is a delinquent taxpayer and a lessee is a genuine lessee who can be protected by the Housing Lease Protection Act as a genuine lessee due to a genuine contract, and the lessee does not know that it constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors of the lessor.
Related statutes
Article 81 of the National Tax Collection Act;
Cases
Suwon District Court 2015Na5695 Demurrer against Distribution
Plaintiff and appellant
Korea
Defendant, Appellant
KimA
Judgment of the first instance court
August 21, 2015
Conclusion of Pleadings
December 3, 2015
Imposition of Judgment
January 28, 2016
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) in total, with the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Purport of claim
가. 본소 : 의정부지방법원고양지원 20BB타경BB부동산 임의경매 신청사건에 관하여 2014. 0. 00. 위 법원이 작성한 배당표 중 제1심 공동피고 DD 유한회사에 대한 배당액 0000원을 00원으로, 제1심 공동피고 EE시 FF구(3순위)에 대한 배당액 000원을 0원으로, 피고(반소원고, 이하 '피고'라고만 한다) 대한민국(GG세무서)에 대한 배당액 000을 0원으로, 피고(반소원고)대한민국(HH세무서)에 대한 배당액 000원을 0원으로, 제1심 공동피고 JJ에 대한 배당액 000원을 0원으로, 원고(반소피고, 이하 '원고'라고만 한다)에 대한배당액 0원을 22,000,000원으로 각 경정한다.나. 반소 : 원고와 송KK 사이에 LL시 QQ구 WW로00번길 00, 00호(RR동,TT아파트)에 관하여 2013. 0. 0. 체결한 임대차계약을 취소한다.
2. Purport of appeal
제1심 판결을 취소한다. 원고와 송KK 사이에 LL시 QQ구 WW로00번길 00,00호(RR동, TT아파트)에 관하여 2013. 0. 0. 체결한 임대차계약을 취소한다. 원고의 본소청구를 기각한다.)
Reasons
The court's explanation of this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, so the appeal against the defendant's principal lawsuit and counterclaim of this case is dismissed because all appeals against the principal lawsuit of this case and counterclaim of this case are without merit.