1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a small-sum lessee who entered into a lease agreement with D to set forth a rental deposit of KRW 25,000,000 with respect to Yongsan-gu Seoul and 101 Dong 3003 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

Nevertheless, the distribution schedule prepared in the Seoul Western District Court B and C (combined) case of the application for the auction of real estate was deemed not reasonable by the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not distribute to the plaintiff. Since this is improper, it is so unfair that the correction of the distribution schedule is sought as stated in the purport of the claim.

2. Determination

A. The legislative purpose of the Housing Lease Protection Act is to ensure the stability of the residential life of citizens by prescribing special cases on the Civil Act concerning residential buildings (Article 1). Article 8(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that the lessee may be paid a certain amount of the deposit in preference to other secured creditors. In the case of small-sum lessee, even if the deposit is small-sum lessee, it is a large amount of property, and thus, it is reasonable to guarantee the recovery of the deposit even if it harms the status of other secured creditors. In light of such legislative purpose and purpose of the system, it is an exception to the general provisions of the Civil Act. In light of the above legislative purpose and purpose of the system, even if the obligee entered into a lease contract with the debtor with respect to the housing owned by the debtor and resided therein, the actual purpose of the lease contract is not to use the housing, but to protect the lessee as a small-sum lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

B. (Supreme Court Decision 2007Da23203 Decided May 15, 2008, etc.).

As to the instant case, evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 are as follows.