1. The part concerning the conjunctive claim in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

3...

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. 1) Legal principles on the cause of a claim: (a) the right of priority repayment of small-amount deposit under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act grants a kind of statutory security right that can be repaid in preference to claims secured by mortgages, taxes, etc. on the leased housing; (b) the obligor’s establishment of the right of lease under the above provision of the Housing Lease Protection Act on the sole debtor’s housing in excess of debt constitutes an act of providing security in excess of debt, which causes the decrease of the obligor’s total property. Therefore, the act of establishing the right of lease is subject to revocation of fraudulent act; (c) in this case, the obligor or beneficiary’s bad faith is presumed to have been assumed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da5071, May 13, 2005; (d) the entry of the right of revocation of fraudulent act, (e) No. 5,7,8,10 and 10; (e) the fact that the Plaintiff’s property at the time of signing the lease contract was 201, 5.7.1, 1,01,2,2, and 301,2,2,2,201,2,2.