beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. As to the first floor G H, I, J, K L, M, N, O, Qho P, Qho and R (hereinafter “instant shopping district”) of the Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, owned by E, the procedure for the auction of D real estate (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). This court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes KRW 4,00,000 out of the amount to be actually distributed on January 29, 2019 to the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, which is the first priority wage creditor, the amount of KRW 314,05,675,00 among the amount to be actually distributed on January 29, 2019, which is the second priority wage creditor, to the Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is the second priority issuing authority, the amount of KRW 2,65,740,00,00 to the Defendant, who is the second priority mortgagee.
B. When the Plaintiff, as a lessee, filed an application for demand for distribution in the instant auction procedure, but was excluded from the distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection on the date of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit on January 31, 2019.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 12 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that he concluded a lease contract with E and registered its business, and the plaintiff is the legitimate small-sum lessee who actually operated in the commercial building of this case, and the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is the most lessee.
B. According to the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the plaintiff prepared a lease agreement dated June 30, 2017 with the purport that he/she leases a lease deposit of KRW 30,000,000, and a lease contract of KRW 30,000 from July 1, 2017 to July 1, 2019, and the plaintiff registered a singing practice room with the trade name of "S" on June 30, 2017.
However, in light of the following circumstances, each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and Nos. 1 through 5, the Plaintiff is the genuine lessee who actually leased the instant commercial building only based on the facts acknowledged earlier and other evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.