1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasons why this court shall state this part of the facts of recognition are as stated in the first instance judgment from No. 8 to No. 3, 9. Thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a small lessee under the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff is entitled to the top priority repayment of KRW 32,000,000 out of the successful bid price for the instant real estate. Therefore, the instant distribution schedule should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the Defendants is the most lessee who does not reside in the instant real estate, and ② the lessee who abused the protection provisions for small-sum lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act to impair the rights of other creditors and seeks their own interests and does not constitute a small-sum lessee protected under the aforementioned Act, and thus, should be excluded from the distribution of dividends, such as the instant distribution schedule

3. Determination

A. According to the purport of evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 7 (including each number) as to whether the Plaintiff is the most lessee, the Plaintiff was unaware of F prior to the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff confirmed the instant real estate through the Internet real estate brokerage site, and concluded the instant lease agreement after entering into the instant lease agreement. The Plaintiff completed the move-in report on the instant real estate on June 29, 2017; the Plaintiff moved into the instant real estate and paid the cost to the cleaning company; and the Seoul Gwangjin-gu JC passbook submitted a written confirmation to the first instance court on July 10, 2019 that “the Plaintiff actually resided in the instant real estate.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff was deemed to have occupied and used the instant real estate while living in the possession of the instant real estate. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. The legislative purpose of the Housing Lease Protection Act is a residential building.