The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 91(3) of the Civil Execution Act provides, “The right to lease on a deposit basis shall be extinguished by sale if it is impossible to oppose the seized claim or provisional seizure claim,” and Article 91(4) of the same Act provides, “The right to lease on a deposit basis, other than the case of paragraph (3), shall be taken over by the buyer: Provided, That if a

Unlike the right of lease on a deposit basis which cannot be set up against mortgage, the right of lease on a deposit basis is extinguished only by the demand for distribution by the person having a right of lease on a deposit basis, unless the person having a right of lease on a deposit basis makes a demand for distribution, and the right of lease on a deposit basis is extinguished regardless of

(2) On June 24, 2010, the lower court recognized the Defendant’s distribution of KRW 3,968,459 among the instant real estate as the lessee and the lessee under subparagraph 102 at the auction procedure (hereinafter “first auction procedure”) with respect to the real estate listed in the attached table of the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant real estate”) by citing the first instance judgment, and determined that the Defendant received the distribution of KRW 25,70,708 as the lessee of the instant real estate under subparagraph 102, while the Defendant received the distribution of KRW 3,968,459 among the instant real estate as the lessee of the small amount under subparagraph 102. In the auction procedure (hereinafter “second auction procedure”), the lower court determined that the Defendant received the distribution of KRW 105 as the lessee of the said real estate and the lessee under subparagraph 105, while having received the distribution as the lessee of the said real estate under subparagraph 105.

3. However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and evidence duly admitted, ① the Defendant was the owner of the instant real estate on April 1, 2009, and on 105 of the instant real estate, 32,500 deposit money.