Demurrer against distribution

Since the court of execution did not make a demand for distribution by the deadline for the completion of the demand for distribution even after being notified of the lessee with regard to the voluntary auction, it is justifiable that the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule to not implement the distribution

Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act (Right to Preferential Payment of Small Lessee)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The contents of the distribution schedule prepared by the court;

○○○ District Court Decision 2004Ma41680 decided November 13, 2006: (a) the distribution schedule was prepared on November 13, 2006 in the distribution procedure for the real estate auction case (hereinafter “instant distribution procedure”); and (b) 432,251,158 won was distributed to the head of ○○ Tax Office (the amount to be actually distributed is KRW 3,872,682,998).

2. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

From ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff leased KRW 14,100,00 of 413, ○○○○○ apartment, located in ○○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○○○, which is the object of auction of the said real estate auction. As such, in the above auction procedure, the executing court did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact that the said auction procedure was in progress, and did not demand a distribution by the completion date of the demand for distribution, the distribution schedule prepared by excluding the Plaintiff from the distribution procedure was erroneous. Ultimately, the Plaintiff, as a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act, should receive a dividend of KRW 12,00,000 out of the lease deposit, as stated in the purport of the

3. Judgment: The plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

The plaintiff, as a lessee of small amount under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, may receive a distribution of the small amount deposit to demand a distribution by the deadline for the completion of the request for distribution. Since the plaintiff did not demand a distribution by the deadline for the completion of the request for distribution even after receiving the notification of the lessee with respect to the voluntary auction of this case from the court of execution, it is justifiable that the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule by not later than the deadline for the completion of the request for distribution against the plaintiff is justifiable (

In addition, notification to a housing lessee of the progress of the auction procedure under the Supreme Court's established rules is not a legal obligation, but merely providing a housing lessee with a guidance on the fact that the auction procedure for the leased object is in progress for the party's convenience, and that even a lessee of a small amount or a lessee of a fixed-date may obtain a preferential repayment for the demand for distribution. Thus, even if the lessee was not notified of the fact that the auction procedure for the leased object was in progress before filing the report on the right, it cannot be a ground for objection to the decision on granting the successful bid (see Supreme Court Order 9Ma763, Jan. 31, 200). Even if the family enforcement court did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact that the auction procedure was in progress, as long as the Plaintiff did not demand a distribution by the completion date of the demand for distribution, the preparation of the distribution schedule

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.