No preferential right to repayment exists because it fails to meet the requirements for counterclaim before filing a request for auction.

In the case of small-sum tenants, if they have requirements for setting up against them (delivery and resident registration) before filing a request for auction, they have preferential rights compared to other creditors. However, since the Plaintiff filed a move-in report of the instant house after the commencement decision was completed, the Plaintiff does not constitute a small-sum lessee with preferential rights for payment. Therefore, the claim for objection against a distribution is groundless.

2012 Single 60091 Objection against a distribution

ThisAAA

Korea

April 30, 2013

May 21, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Of the dividend table prepared by the above court on December 28, 2012, the amount of dividends to the defendant shall be KRW 0000,000, and the amount of dividends to the plaintiff shall be corrected to KRW 000,000, respectively, from among the dividend table prepared by the above court on December 28, 2012.

1. Basic facts

A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “the instant house”) was owned by KimB. On May 10, 2001, the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation’s mortgage was established on the same date. However, on June 2, 201, upon the said National Agricultural Cooperative Federation’s voluntary auction application, Gi Government District Court No. 20259, Jun. 2, 201.

The decision was made and the registration of the decision to commence the auction was completed on the same day.

B. On August 1, 2007, the Defendant completed the registration of seizure, and on the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a report on the right to lease deposit amounting to KRW 20 million on August 26, 201 in the said auction case and filed an application for demand for distribution.

C. On December 28, 2012, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule stating that the Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd., the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation prior to its change), as the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, distribute the amount of KRW 000 to the dividends of KRW 000,000 to the defendant who is the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, with the second priority.

D. On December 28, 2012, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution implemented on the date of distribution, and made a statement to the effect that he/she raised an objection against KRW 000,000 out of the dividends to the Defendant.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, entries in Gap's Nos. 3, 4, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On March 10, 1994, the Plaintiff continued to reside after concluding a lease agreement with the CCC Construction, which is the former owner of the instant building. Since the Plaintiff succeeded to the lease agreement on November 29, 2003, the former owner of the instant building, KimB, and the latter owner of KimB, who were the owner of the instant building, were residing in the said lease agreement, and thus, it is unreasonable to be excluded from the dividend even if there was a preferential right to repayment of the deposit as a small lessee.

B. Determination

In the case of lease of a house, a lessee may oppose a third party from the following day when the delivery of the house and the resident registration is completed. In particular, in the case of a small lessee, if he has the above requisite to set up against him before filing a request for auction (see Articles 8(1) and 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act). According to the evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff’s moving-in report of the house of this case can be known to be September 19, 201, after the commencement of the decision on commencement of auction was completed. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s moving-in report of the house of this case cannot be seen as a small lessee with the preferential right to payment, and the claim of this case raising an objection against the dividends cannot be seen as a lessee with the opposing right to payment, and it is without any reason to further examine (the Plaintiff’s moving-in of the house of this case after obtaining a fixed date on September 13, 1997, which was asserted as reference material, and the Plaintiff’s moving-in house of this case is recognized as 3 1, 19,000-2.

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.