Seoul East East District Court-2018-Ban-132852 ( October 29, 2019)

Where a lease contract is concluded to obtain unjust benefits by abusing the Housing Lease Protection Act, it shall not be protected as a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

Even if a lessee is deemed to have the appearance of a true tenant, if a lease contract is concluded to abuse the Housing Lease Protection Act to obtain unjust benefits, it may not be protected as a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2019Na22311 Demurrer against distribution

Gyeong Kim

Defendant, Appellant

Republic of Korea and 1

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2018Gadan132852 Decided January 29, 2019

July 17, 2019

September 4, 2019

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

서울동부지방법원 2017타경5○○○○ 부동산임의경매사건에 관하여 같은 법원이 2018. 9. 19. 작성한 배당표 중 피고 ▲▲보험 주식회사에 대한 배당액 294,850,554원을 266,422,746원으로, 피고 대한민국에 대한 배당액 3,572,192원을 0원으로, 원고에 대한 배당액 0원을 32,000,000원으로 각 경정한다(이 사건 소장의 청구취지 기재 "266,422,744원", "3,976,870원"은 각 "266,422,746원", "3,572,192원"의 오기로 보인다).

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

The reasons for this Court to be stated are as stated in the second to third to nine of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As a small lessee under the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff is entitled to the highest repayment of KRW 32,00,000 out of the successful bid price for the instant real estate, so the instant dividend table should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. The defendants' assertion

① The Plaintiff is the most lessee who does not reside in the instant real estate. ② The Plaintiff is a lessee who abused the Housing Lease Protection Act’s protection provision for small-sum lessee, thereby undermining the rights of other creditors and seeking their own interests, and does not constitute a small-sum lessee protected under the aforementioned Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff should be excluded from the distribution of dividends, as

3. Determination

A. Whether he/she is the most lessee

According to the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 7 (including various numbers) and the whole video and oral arguments, the plaintiff was not aware of the same connection with the instant real estate before the instant lease agreement, confirmed the instant real estate through the Internet real estate brokerage site, and concluded the instant lease agreement after entering into the instant lease agreement. The plaintiff completed the move-in report on June 29, 2017; the plaintiff moved into the instant real estate in the instant real estate in the course of cleaning and cleaning through the cleaning company; the plaintiff paid the cost; and the head of Seoul ○○-dong, Seoul ○○○○-dong, submitted a written confirmation to the first instance court on July 10, 2019 that "the plaintiff actually resided in the instant real estate" was "the plaintiff occupied and used the instant real estate while living in the possession of the instant real estate. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion of the above tenant is without merit.

B. Whether the Housing Lease Protection Act is abused

The legislative purpose of the Housing Lease Protection Act is to ensure the stability of the residential life of citizens by prescribing special cases concerning residential buildings (Article 1). Article 8(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that a lessee may be paid a certain amount of a security deposit in preference to other security right holders. In the case of a small lessee, even though the security deposit is a small amount of property, it is more reasonable to guarantee the recovery of the security deposit even if it harms the status of other security holders. Therefore, in light of such legislative purpose and purpose of the system, it is reasonable to consider the general provisions of the Civil Act. In addition, even if the obligee entered into a lease contract with the debtor and entered into a move-in report with the debtor and resided at the same place, it is not intended to use the real purpose of the lease contract and to protect the lessee as a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da123137, May 8, 2001).

위 법리에 비추어 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 갑 1호증, 을가 1호증의 각 기재, 위 인정사실 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음의 사정, 즉 ① 이 사건 부동산에 대한 경매절차에서 매각대금이 302,500,000원임에 반해, 이 사건 임대차계약 체결 전에 등기된 가압류 청구금액 합계 136,176,048원, 피고 ▲▲보험 주식회사의 근저당권의 채권최고액이 310,800,000원으로써 총합계 446,976,048원이고, 여기에 피고 대한민국의 압류 2건, 서울특별시 ○○구의 압류 1건이 있었던 것을 보태어 보면 채권최고액의 합계가 이미 부동산의 가치를 상당히 초과하여 정상적인 임대차계약이 사실상 불가능하였던 점, ② 이 사건 임대차계약상 원고는 임대인 마◈◈에게 월 차임 없이 임대차보증금 34,000,000원을 지급하면 되는데, 이는 위 매각대금 302,500,000원의 11.24%에 불과한 것으로써 임차인인 원고에게 비정상적으로 유리한 계약인 점, ③ 위 34,000,000원은 주택임대차보호법에 따라 우선변제받을 수 있는 소액보증금 32,000,000원에 매우 근접한 금액인 점, ④ 원고가 이 사건 임대차계약 체결 전에 이 사건 부동산을 사실상 중개한 임대인의 지인으로부터 '융자가 많아서 만약 경매되더라도 주택임대차보호법 최우선변제금으로 놓는 거예요'라는 문자메시지를 받았고, 위 지인에게 '최우선변제는 알고 있는데 지금 상황이 무조건 또는 거의 경매로 넘어갈 상황인건가요'라는 문자메시지를 보내는 등으로 최우선변제권의 내용과 그 보호범위를 인식하고 이 사건 임대차계약을 체결한 점, ⑤ 이 사건 임대차계약일(2017. 6. 16.)로부터 약 2개월 후인 2017. 8. 29. 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 임의경매절차가 개시되었고, 주택임대차보호법상 소액임차인 보호규정이 적용될 경우 이 사건 임대차계약으로 인하여 다른 채권자들이 이 사건 부동산의 임대차보증금 상당의 손해를 입게 되는 점 등을 종합해 보면, 원고는 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 단기간 내에 임의경매 등이 개시될 것을 알면서도 주택임대차보호법상 소액임차인 보호규정을 악용하여 현저히 저렴한 가격에 이 사건 부동산을 임차한 후 점유・사용함으로써 다른 채권자들의 권리를 해하고 원고나 채무자 마◈◈의 이익을 도모하였으므로, 원고는 주택임대차보호법상 보호되는 소액임차인에 해당한다고 할 수 없다.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the plaintiff's appeal is accepted by the defendants, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked