1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 4, 2012, the registration of preservation of ownership was made in the name E with respect to multi-household D D (hereinafter “instant house”).

B. F had monetary claims against E, but in order to secure the said monetary claim, F was signed and stamped by E on the lease contract in which the lessor was E in connection with the instant housing.

After that, on March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the contents of KRW 305 of the instant housing in the lease agreement, KRW 40,000, and KRW 250,00 of the rent from March 25, 2013 to March 24, 2014.

C. From May 13, 2013, the Defendant leased the said KRW 305 from E to May 13, 2013, the deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000, and from May 29, 2013 to May 28, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 3,000,000 on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 47,00,000 on May 29, 2013, respectively.

With respect to the instant housing, a voluntary auction was commenced with the Daegu District Court C, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed an application for a report on rights and a demand for distribution as a lessee. However, in the auction procedure, the said court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 19,00,000 to the Defendant as a small lessee only, and excluded the Plaintiff from the distribution of dividends.

E. On March 20, 2014, the Plaintiff’s agent F appeared on the date of distribution and stated that he/she raised an objection against the amount of distribution to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 4, 6, 7 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the lessee who entered into a lease agreement with E, the owner of the instant housing, and occupied the said 305 housing out of the instant housing.

On the other hand, the defendant did not have resided in the above 305 even after the conclusion of the above 305 lease contract. Therefore, the Housing Lease Protection Act is applicable.