Since it is deemed that there was a senior tenant with opposing power at the time of the successful bid, part of the dividend in the Seosan Tax Office should be returned.

The defendant seems to have known the existence or existence of the right of lease with respect to the real estate at the time of the successful bid, so part of the dividend received by the director of the Seosan Tax Office shall be returned to the plaintiff.

201Ad hoc 20880 Damages, etc.

IsaA

-B 3 others

December 23, 2011

January 13, 2012

1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

and primarily,

Defendant-B shall pay to the Plaintiff 3,356,800 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the day of complete payment.

Preliminary

The Plaintiff shall pay 22,00,000 won to Defendant-B; 6,111,162 won to Defendant National Bank; 5,216,837 won to Defendant Korea; and 28,799 won to Defendant Ulsan Metropolitan City; and each of the above amounts, 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 27, 199, the registration of creation was completed with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter, the instant real estate) owned by Defendant CB, the Defendant National Bank, which held the first priority collateral on the real estate (hereinafter, the instant real estate), and the voluntary auction procedure was initiated on November 13, 2008 by Ulsan District Court 2008 Tata21954 on November 13, 2008.

B. The plaintiff obtained a permit for sale at the above auction procedure and KRW 40,560,000 on October 7, 2009.

in full and acquired ownership.

C. On the other hand, in the distribution procedure of the above auction case, the defendant Jung-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City, 134,780 won, the defendant Food Bank, 28,600,000 won, and the defendant Republic of Korea (competent administrative officer): the defendant Republic of Korea (competent administrative officer) received dividends in total of 24,414,599 won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 4 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Nonparty 22 million won has the right of lease as to the instant real estate, and the said right of lease also has the opposing power against the Plaintiff, who is the successful bidder of the instant real estate pursuant to the Housing Lease Protection Act. However, at the time of the successful bid of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff was unaware of the right of lease with such opposing power as above at the time of the successful bid, and the Defendant-B did not notify this situation. The Plaintiff was liable for the repayment of the said deposit against KimF, resulting in the Plaintiff’s non-performance of damages equivalent to the amount. Accordingly, Defendant-B is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 22 million as compensation for damages.

(2) 원고가 이 사건 부동산을 경락받은 것은 수량지정매매에 해당하는바, 원고는 이 사건 부동산의 전용면적이 59.4㎡인 것으로 알았으나 실제 전용면적은 36.3㎡에 불과하다. 따라서, 피고 형BB은 원고에게 원고가 납입한 이 사건 부동산에 대한 매각대금 40,560,000원 중 수량부족분에 해당하는 11,356,800원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있다. 예비적으로, 피고 형BB이 자력이 없는 경우 위 경매절차에서 배당을 받은 채권자들인 피고 울산광역시 남구, 피고 주식회사 국민은행, 피고 대한민국이 피고 형QQ을 대신하여 원고에게 위 11,356,800원을 반환하여야 하는바, 각 배당받은 금액의 비율에 따라 피고 울산광역시 남구는 28,799원, 피고 주식회사 RR은행은 6,111,162원, 피고 대한민국은 5,216,837원에 한하여 반환책임이 있다.

B. Determination

(1) We examine the Plaintiff’s first argument.

In full view of the provisions of Article 3(4) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, Articles 575(1) and (3), and 578 of the Civil Act, where a house which is the object of auction becomes the object of the right of lease with opposing power, a successful bidder may file a claim for damages with an obligor without notifying such circumstance if he was unaware thereof. However, in this case, according to the records of evidence Nos. 3, B, and 3, KimF has a right of lease with the deposit amount of 22 million won for the instant real estate, and the above right of opposing power remains as against the successful bidder of the instant real estate pursuant to the Housing Lease Protection Act prior to the date of registration of establishment of the first priority collective security right for the instant real estate. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff's right of lease cannot be seen as the existence or absence of opposing power as 0 days prior to the date of registration of the instant real estate at issue.

(2) We examine the second argument of the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff's second argument is premised on the premise that the plaintiff's bid price of the real estate of this case in the above auction procedure falls under the sale by quantity. The "sale by which quantity is designated" under Article 574 of the Civil Code means the case where the parties have a certain quantity of specific goods which are the object of sale, and the price is determined based on the quantity. There is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff's bid of this case constitutes the sale by quantity. There is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff's bid of this case constitutes the sale by quantity (general, in a voluntary auction for exercising a security right, it is only a method for the auction court to indicate the area on the registry of the land which is the object of auction. In determining the minimum auction price, if the appraiser calculated the price by multiplying the unit area by the area on the registry of the land which is the object of sale by the area on the per unit area, it is a means to determine the total price of the land.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be said that it is a "sale which designates the quantity" under Article 574 of the Civil Act, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, the plaintiff's second assertion is without merit, and it is not necessary to further examine the remainder.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims against the defendants are all dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.