1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim added in the trial is dismissed.

3. Appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence

2. The plaintiff asserts that the distribution schedule should be revised by eliminating the amount of distribution to the defendant and distributing it to the plaintiff additionally, even if the defendant is the most lessee or the defendant, and even if he was equipped with the appearance of the real tenant, such as entering into a lease agreement and using and occupying the real house, he/she actually intends to collect the claim in preference to the senior mortgagee, and is not a small lessee subject to protection under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

Gabs, the following 3-B

In light of the various circumstances as examined in the above, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was based on the false declaration of intention of conspiracy between B and the Defendant, or that the Defendant concluded the instant lease contract with the primary purpose of collecting claims by abusing the protection provisions of small lessee, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

A person shall be appointed.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. In light of the determination on the cause of the claim, the first priority repayment right under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act grants a kind of statutory security right that can be paid in preference to claims secured by mortgages, taxes, etc. against the leased house (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da66291, Sept. 5, 2003). Thus, the debtor’s act of setting the right of lease under the aforementioned Article with respect to the only house owned by the debtor in excess of the obligation is the debtor’s act of offering collateral in excess of the obligation.