1. Of the lawsuit in this case, the part of the claim for cancellation of the registration of housing lease shall be dismissed;

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

The plaintiff asserts that a lease agreement stated in the purport of the claim is a fraudulent act and seeks cancellation of the registration of the housing lease as stated in the above lease agreement to restore it to its original state.

However, cancellation of the registration of housing lease shall be based on the objection or cancellation application as stipulated in Article 3-3 (3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, and it is unlawful to file a lawsuit as in this case, and seek cancellation of the registration of housing lease, because there is no benefit.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the pleadings in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including additional numbers), the defendant entered into a lease agreement with Eul on March 5, 2013, and agreed to lease No. 902, and paid No. 80,000 won to Eul, a director and his family at around that time, and was living together with Eul until the conclusion of the lease agreement. Thus, it can be known that the defendant was unaware of the property status of Eul at all, and therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant knew that he would harm the creditor of Eul at the time of the conclusion of the above lease agreement, and therefore, there is no reason to believe that the above lease agreement should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

(1) The plaintiff's provisional attachment on the leased object alone cannot be deemed to have known that the conclusion of the above lease agreement was a fraudulent act at that time, and thus, the defendant's exclusion period limit and argument is not accepted). Thus, the part of the claim for cancellation of the registration of the housing lease in the lawsuit in this case is dismissed, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.