There is no evidence proving that the deposit was paid.

Since there is no evidence to prove that the lease contract was prepared, it is not admissible as evidence, and it is insufficient to recognize that the lease contract was paid the lease deposit and lease deposit.

Article 23 of the National Tax Collection Act

2013 Mada9740 Demurrer

1. TA2. KimB

1.CC;

December 6, 2013

January 3, 2014

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

In the Suwon District Court's Suwon District Court's Suwon District Court's Sung-nam case of real estate auction in 15192 real estate rental auction, the amount of dividends to the defendantCC Bank and the amount of dividends to the defendant Republic of Korea shall be deleted, respectively, from among the dividend table prepared by the above court on March 8, 2013, and the amount of dividends to the plaintiffs shall be corrected to each amount of OOOOO.

1. Basic facts

"A. OO. O. O. O.O. O.O.O.O. 1234 multi-household 101 (hereinafter "the instant building") filed an objection against the dividend amount against the Defendants, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the instant distribution on March 8, 2013, in the case of the Suwon District Court's Suwon District Court's Sung-nam Branch of 2012 Sungnam-do, 15192 real estate rental auction by the Suwon District Court. The above court, on March 8, 2013, distributed OOOO and OOOO to the defendant CC Bank, a person holding the attachment right, and the plaintiffs who asserted as a lessee of the instant building and claimed as a demand for distribution, were excluded from the dividend amount."

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

On March 20, 2004, Plaintiff YA entered into a lease agreement with POO on the larger banks of the instant building as the OOO of the deposit money, and the payment of the deposit money was set off against the claims held by ICE, and had been settled on April 27, 2004 and has been residing until now. Plaintiff YB entered into a lease agreement with NA on the lower banks of the instant building as the OOO of the deposit money for lease, and the payment of the deposit money was substituted by the claims against PE, and had been residing until now after the completion of the move-in report on the said building on January 31, 2007. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have the right to receive dividends preferentially to the Defendants as a lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the amount of dividends to the Plaintiffs should be deleted, and the distribution schedule should be corrected.

B. Determination

In light of the evidence No. 3-2, No. 4-1, No. 3-4-1, each lease agreement of Y cannot be used as evidence for the lack of evidence to prove that the ParkE prepared it, and the testimony of the witness tinA to the effect that the plaintiff tin A leased the building of this case from ParkE is difficult to believe, and in light of the evidence No. 2-2, No. 3-2, No. 4-2, and No. 6-1, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiffs leased the building of this case from ParkE and paid the lease deposit, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise (in particular, the plaintiff KimB does not specify what bonds it is substituted for the payment of the lease deposit).

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.