Whether the lease of a small amount is a genuine lessee protected;

Although it is argued that it is a legitimate small lessee, it is reasonable to exclude it from the dividend order in the case of dividend payment, if it is lack of authenticity in terms of the current status of payment or the current status of lease despite the lease contract.

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

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The distribution schedule prepared by this court on September 20, 2007 in the distribution procedure in the case of a claim for an auction of real estate rent in 439 is to reduce the amount of 54,000,000 won against Defendant ○○○ Cooperative to KRW 42,993,064, and to delete the amount of dividends against the remaining Defendants, and to rectify the amount of 14,000,000 won to the Plaintiff.

1. The assertion and judgment

The plaintiff asserts that he should pay 14 million won to himself prior to the defendants, since he entered into a lease agreement with ○○○ apartment X-dong, among the ○○○○○○ Dong's ○○○ apartment, as well as 14 million won in lease deposit, and thereafter, he is a legitimate small lessee who has moved into a lease agreement with ○○○○ Dong, X-dong, and paid 14 million won in lease deposit. The defendants asserted that the plaintiff is the most lessee who entered into a false lease agreement with ○○○ Dong.

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff failed to present objective data on the background that the lease deposit 14 million won was prepared even if the amount is not smaller than the amount, and on the route that the said 14 million won was paid to △△, 200,000 won as the wife of this △△△, the 14 million won was argued to have been directly paid from the Plaintiff. 3rd, the building of this case is a small number of rooms of 20,0000,000 won, and 14,000,000 won was purchased from the Plaintiff. 4,000,000,000 won, and 14,000,000 won, which was argued to have been paid by △△△, and 14,000,000 won, which was concluded with the Plaintiff. 4,000,000 won, the Plaintiff and 14,000,000 won, which had been settled among the church of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that the plaintiff is a true tenant is without merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.