(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.11.3.선고 2015가단20799 판결

1. On June 17, 2015, Jeonju District Court Decision 2014Mo1*** * * 14,00,000,000 won as dividends against the defendant in the distribution schedule prepared by the above Act on June 17, 2015, and distributed dividends to the plaintiff at KRW 46,178, 986 won as dividends to the plaintiff, KRW 52,56,370 as dividends, respectively.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Purport of claim

The order is as set forth in the text.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 2, 2012, Park 00: (a) borrowed money from the Plaintiff; and (b) completed the registration of establishment of a collateral for the real estate listed in the [Attachment List] owned by the Plaintiff to secure that money; (c) the maximum debt amount of KRW 45,50,00,000; (d) the debtor Park 00; and (e) the registration of establishment of a collateral for the right to collateral security; and (e) the registration of establishment of a collateral for the right to collateral security.

B. On December 2013, Park 00 entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and his wife Kim 00 (hereinafter “Defendant father”) with each of the following: 00 units of the instant housing; 15,000,000 units of the lease deposit; 24 months from December 22, 2013; 50,000 units of the monthly rent; and 00 units of the lease agreement with the Defendant as well as the Defendant’s wife; 00 units of the instant housing; and 15,000 units of lease deposit; and 15,000 units of the lease deposit; and 24 months from December 22, 2013; and 50,000 units of the monthly rent; however, the above units of real estate subject to sectional ownership on the register is independent real estate that is made between them.

C. On December 23, 2013, the Defendant Division received the instant housing on the following day, and reported each of the instant housing on the same day, and obtained a fixed date in each lease agreement.

D. Since Park 00 did not repay the borrowed loan obligation, the Plaintiff started the auction procedure under the Jeonju District Court 2014tae1*** with respect to the instant housing on September 1, 2014 by having the mortgage as set forth in the above A. as to September 1, 2014.

E. The Plaintiff filed an application with the creditor and the mortgagee, who is the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, 52, 566, 370 won, and the Defendant’s portion, with each of the small rent rent of KRW 15,00,00 as the respective claim claims, filed a report on the right and demand for distribution at the instant auction procedure. The auction court recognized the Defendant’s father as a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Act”) on June 17, 2015, and recognized the Defendant’s father as a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Act”).

Each 14,00,000 won, and each 46,178, and 986 won are distributed to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the instant schedule").

F. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution on the ground that the Defendant was the most lessee, and subsequently filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap's statements in Gap's evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

Since the right to preferential payment to small lessee under the law is recognized to ensure the stability of small lessee's residential life, in substance, it is light that a single leased vehicle for community life of family is divided into several leases in order to be protected as a small-sum lease under the law, and this is deemed null and void as it constitutes a conspiracy with false representation or an evasion of law in collusion with the intention to avoid the limitation provisions under the law on the protection of small lessee.

In light of the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant department falsely prepared two lease contracts under the name of the defendant and his wife Kim 00 with the intention of protecting the tenant of a small amount under the law in 00 in order to protect the tenant of a small amount in the form as a lessee in light of the situation where the plaintiff's right to collateral security, etc. was actually the whole house of this case from 00 for the purpose of communal living in the housing of this case, and the defendant division is likely to recover the lease deposit due to the plaintiff's right to collateral security, etc., which was established in priority. This is to avoid the limitation provisions under the law of protecting the tenant of small amount, and thus, it is null and void as it constitutes a false conspiracy or an evasion of law.

Therefore, since the distribution schedule of this case prepared by the auction court by recognizing the defendant as a tenant of small amount in force under law is unfair, it is reasonable to correct the dividend amount of the plaintiff 46, 178, 986 won in the distribution schedule of this case as 52, 566, and 370 won in the amount of dividends against the plaintiff, and the dividend amount of 14,000,000 won in the defendant as 7, 612, and 616 won in the amount of dividends of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.