In order to be protected as a small lessee, it should be proved that the lessor has paid the security deposit.

Although it is clearly proved that a lessor has paid a security deposit in order to be protected as a small lessee pursuant to the Housing Lease Protection Act, it is insufficient to recognize the assertion that a security deposit has been paid as a security deposit, and there is no other evidence to

2011 Single 70653 of the Demurrer

leAA

Korea

April 10, 2012

April 24, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Of the distribution schedule prepared by this Court on September 20, 201 with respect to the Suwon District Court 2010Thyeong 34578, the amount of dividends to the Defendant shall be adjusted to KRW 000,000, and the Plaintiff shall be distributed KRW 000 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4, and Eul evidence 1:

A. The 000 won tax claim against the non-party EE was involved in the voluntary auction of the claim stated in the purport of the claim against the real estate owned by the EE due to the taxation claim of the non-party E.

B. On July 10, 2007, the Defendant leased the above auction real estate from the EE to the auction court with a guarantee amount of 000 won for residential purpose. On July 11, 2007, the Defendant filed a report on the right and filed an application for demand for distribution with the purport that it is a lessee who completed the fixed date on October 12, 201 and the moving-in report on July 11, 2007.

C. On September 20, 201, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule with the content of distributing KRW 000 to the Defendant as the holder of the distribution right on the date of distribution. The Plaintiff stated an objection against KRW 00 out of the amount of distribution to the Defendant, who did not lend the distribution in the distribution order, and filed the instant lawsuit on September 26, 201.

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the distribution schedule of this case should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim, inasmuch as it is excluded from the distribution even if the plaintiff is a small lessee entitled to protection pursuant to the Housing Lease Protection Act. Accordingly, the defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff is not a small lessee entitled to protection pursuant to the above law.

3. Determination

In order for the Plaintiff to be protected as a small lessee pursuant to the Housing Lease Protection Act, it is necessary to clearly prove that the Plaintiff paid the above security deposit to the E as a lessor. However, as to the assertion that the Plaintiff paid 000 won to the E as the above security deposit in this case, it is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In particular, the Plaintiff submitted the evidence of No. 5 as evidence, while the Plaintiff deposited 00 won on June 30, 2006 and 00 won on December 5, 2007, respectively, while the Plaintiff submitted the evidence of No. 5 as evidence. However, even according to the contents of No. 5, the Plaintiff’s wife, as well as the head of E, was deposited in the number of passbooks, and the amount deposited on Dec. 5, 2007, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff did not receive the above security deposit as the result of the auction procedure in light of the following facts: