beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows each evidence submitted in this court, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is that of the first instance judgment, except where the plaintiff added a judgment on the contents of the plaintiff's assertion again by this court, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main text of Article 4
2. Additional determination
A. On August 18, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff agreed to convert the claim of KRW 70 million from F to the deposit for lease, and entered into a lease agreement with F with respect to KRW 204 on the instant building, and subsequently, made a move-in report on February 13, 2015, received the same date, received the fixed date, and occupied the said 204 by delivery from May 10, 2015, and thus, the Plaintiff has the right to receive dividends as a lessee with opposing power and preferential payment right under the Housing Lease Protection Act.
B. Determination 1) Even if a creditor, after concluding a lease agreement with a debtor on a house owned by the debtor and completing a move-in report, has been formally residing therein and obtained the opposing power as a house lease, the main purpose of the lease agreement is not to gain profit or gain profit from the house, and in cases where the creditor, in fact, was to be protected as a lessee with opposing power and to recover claims in preference to junior creditors and other creditors, he/she may not give any opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da14733, May 8, 2001). 2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the record, namely, the Plaintiff himself/herself agreed to convert the claim amount of KRW 70 million to the lease deposit, and then entered into the instant lease agreement with F.