Whether it is a small lessee or not;

In the case of a real estate lease leased to a person with a special relationship, it can not be deemed a small lease due to no evidence of payment of the lease deposit and no fixed date.

Article 81 of the National Tax Collection Act

1. Of the dividend table prepared by the same court on April 12, 2006, 2,933,459, the amount of dividends against the plaintiff to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 48461, shall be corrected to KRW 2,993,459,00.

2. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant ○ Savings Bank, Korea, ○ Business Bank, ○○ Bank, ○○ Bank, △△ Bank, and ○○ Cooperative is all dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant ○○ Bank is assessed against the Plaintiff on the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant ○○ Bank, Korea, ○○ Bank, ○○ Enterprise Bank, ○○ Bank, ○○ Bank, a stock company, △△ Bank, and ○○ Cooperative.

Cheong-gu Office

Of the dividend table prepared by the same court on April 12, 2006 with respect to the auction case of real estate 2004 ○○○○○ 48461, the amount of dividends to the Plaintiff is KRW 14,00,000,000, and KRW 50,796,185, the amount of dividends to the Defendant ○○ Savings Bank is KRW 49,978,189, and KRW 2,190,080 to the Defendant ○○ ○○ ○ △△ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △, the amount of dividends to the Defendant ○ ○ ○ ○ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 2,178,180,000.

1. The fact that there is no dispute with him/her;

A. On December 30, 2004, the ○○ District Court: (a) voluntarily revised the auction room under 2004○○○○○○-dong, Daejeon, ○○○○-dong, 99, ○○○○-dong, ○○○○○-dong, 2004, 48461; and (b) completed the entry registration on the same day.

B. In the above auction procedure, the Plaintiff asserted that he is a small lessee of one room among the above buildings and demanded a distribution of the claim to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million. However, on April 12, 2006, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that the Defendant 1 distributes to Defendant 1 2,93,459, KRW 2,435, and KRW 2,435, and Defendant 6 distributes to Defendant 2,505, KRW 82,346, among the amount to be actually distributed on April 12, 2006, KRW 124,121,40, KRW 409, KRW 50, KRW 2,190, and KRW 50 to Defendant 2,459, KRW 459, KRW 2,491, and KRW 505, KRW 7, and KRW 822,346, and excluded the Plaintiff from the distribution schedule.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, on December 11, 1993, rented one column among the above buildings from ○○○, and then renewed the above lease from around that time, and entered into a lease agreement with ○○○ on March 15, 200 with the above one column for lease deposit amounting to 30 million won and 36 months, and paid the lease deposit to ○○○○. On December 11, 1993, the plaintiff completed the move-in report with the location of the above room as 1 column, and the plaintiff is a small lessee for whom the right of priority repayment is recognized under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and therefore, the above distribution schedule should be revised as described in the purport of the claim.

B. Determination of the claim against the defendant 3

3. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff does not clearly dispute the above assertion, it can be viewed as a confession under Article 150(1) of the Civil Act.

Therefore, among the above distribution schedule, the dividend amount to the plaintiff shall be KRW 2,993,459, and KRW 2,993,459 against the defendant 3 shall be corrected to KRW 0.0.

C. Determination of claims against Defendant 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7

On March 15, 200, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with ○○ on the lease deposit with 30 million won to lease the above room, and paid the lease deposit to ○○○○. As to the fact that the Plaintiff paid the lease deposit, the Plaintiff’s testimony by ○○○○○○○○ was not submitted financial data supporting the Plaintiff’s payment of the lease deposit to ○○○○○○○○○, ② the Plaintiff’s payment of the lease deposit to ○○○○○, ② the Plaintiff did not submit financial data supporting the Plaintiff’s payment of the lease deposit to ○○○○○, ③ the Plaintiff did not obtain a fixed date on the lease contract (Evidence 2). There is insufficient evidence to acknowledge this by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 3 is accepted as reasonable, and the claim against the defendant 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.