The expiration date of the term of delivery and resident registration of a house which is a requirement for preferential payment right of a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act (=the date of adjudication)

In light of the fact that Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides the lessee with the requirements for the delivery of a house and resident registration under Article 3 (1) of the same Act and grants the registered security right holder the right to preferential payment within a certain amount of the deposit, the lessee exercises the right to preferential payment by means of a demand for distribution, and if it is sufficient if the above requirements are met only until the time of the demand for distribution, it may cause damage to other interested parties in the auction procedure, such as the emergence of the lessee under Article 3-2 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and the demand for distribution, etc., in relation to the same leased house, the requirements for preferential repayment of the delivery of a house and resident registration are not satisfied only when the right to preferential payment is acquired at the time of the acquisition of the right to preferential payment.

Articles 3 (1) and 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Korea Technology Finance Corporation and one other (Attorney Lee Ho-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 95Na22268 delivered on August 30, 1995

The part of the lower judgment against Plaintiff 1 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul District Court. The Defendants’ appeal against Plaintiff 2 is dismissed. The costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above non-party 1 had the right to set up the above 4-mortgage 1 and the non-party 2-mortgage 1 and the non-party 2-party 3-mortgage 2-mortgage 9 and the non-party 4-mortgage 9-2-mortgage 1-mortgage 8-mortgage 1-mortgage 2-mortgage 9-mortgage 1-mortgage 1-mortgage 9-mortgage 1-mortgage 1-mortgage 9-mortgage 1-mortgage 9-mortgage 1-mortgage 1-mortgage 9-mortgage 1-mortgage 1-mortgage 2-mortgage 9-mortgage 1-mortgage 9-mortgage 1-mortgage 9-mortgage 1-mortgage 2-mortgage 9-mortgage 2-mortgage 9-mortgage 1-mortgage 2-mortgage 9-mortgage 10, 1993. The plaintiff 1 had the right to set up the above 7-party 2-mortgage 2-mortgage 1-6

In light of the fact that Article 8 of the Act provides for the lessee with the requirements for the delivery of a house and resident registration as prescribed in Article 3 (1) of the Act and grants the registered security right holder the right to preferential reimbursement within the specified amount of the deposit, the lessee exercises the right to preferential reimbursement by means of a demand for distribution, and if it is sufficient if the above requirements are met only until the time of the demand for distribution, it may cause damage to other interested parties in the auction procedure, such as the attendance of the lessee prescribed in Article 3-2 of the Act in addition to the lessee prescribed in Article 8 of the Act and the demand for distribution. In the housing lease without the method of public announcement, the requirements for preferential reimbursement for the delivery of a house and resident registration are not sufficient if the right to preferential reimbursement is met only at the time of the acquisition of the right to preferential reimbursement, and it is reasonable to view that it is necessary to continue until

However, according to the facts duly established by the court below, the registration of application for auction on April 13, 1994 was completed, and the decision of permission for auction was rendered on July 22 of the same year. All plaintiffs are tenants prescribed in Article 8 of the Act, and the plaintiffs 1 transferred on June 7, 1994 before the above decision of permission for auction was rendered, and the plaintiff 2 completed the transfer of house and resident registration before the above application for auction was registered and transferred on July 26, 1994 after the above decision of permission for auction was rendered. The plaintiff 2 transferred on July 26, 1994 after the above application for auction was delivered and the decision of permission for auction was delivered. Thus, the plaintiff 1 cannot be paid preferentially to the defendants who are the right to collateral security, but the plaintiff 2 can be paid preferentially to the defendants within the limit of 7,000,000 won under Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the requirements for the preferential repayment of housing delivery and resident registration are satisfied only with the documents furnished prior to the registration of a request for auction, and held that all the plaintiffs can be paid preferentially to the defendants within the limit of 7,00,000 won under Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act among each of the security deposit does not constitute an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the right to preferential reimbursement of housing tenants. The part against plaintiffs 1 among the judgment below is obvious that the above error of law was affected by the judgment of the court below, and therefore, the part against plaintiffs 2 cannot be deemed to have affected the judgment, and the conclusion of the judgment of the court below is justified, and the above error of law as to plaintiffs 2 cannot be deemed to have affected the judgment, and therefore

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff 1 is reversed and remanded to the court below. The defendants' appeal against the plaintiff 2 is dismissed. The costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against the defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)