Claims for return of deposit for lease of a small lessee who has the right of priority repayment as prescribed by the Housing Lease Protection Act shall take priority in tax claims.

The claim for the return of the deposit of small-sum lessee who has the right of priority repayment as prescribed by the Housing Lease Protection Act shall take precedence over the tax claim, and the lessee shall not be deemed to have entered into a lease contract with the intention to gain unjust benefits unless there is any assertion as to the relationship between the lessor and the lessee or the circumstances to suspect the source of the deposit paid

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2014da34364 Demurrer against distribution

LAA

Korea

December 16, 2014

January 27, 2015

1. Of the dividend table prepared by the above court on August 20, 2014 with respect to the auction of real estate (OO) No. 2014, Incheon District Court Branch 2014, the dividend amount to the defendant was 42,377,94 won, 22,377,994 won, and the dividend amount to the plaintiff was 20,000,000 won, respectively.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 27, 2014, at the request of the agricultural cooperative that is a mortgagee, for the O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-dong O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-dong (hereinafter referred to as "the instant real estate"), a voluntary auction procedure was commenced by this Court 2014 OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O

B. In the instant auction procedure, the Defendant asserted that he leased the instant real estate at KRW 20,000,000 as the lease deposit on December 14, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and filed an application for demand for distribution.

C. On August 20, 2014, the said auction court prepared a distribution schedule that did not distribute to the Plaintiff on the date of distribution, but distributes KRW 42,377,94 to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

D. On August 27, 2014, the Plaintiff raised an objection against KRW 20,00,000 out of the amount of dividends against the Defendant on the said date of distribution.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, records clearly, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 2 through 8 and 10, the Plaintiff concluded the instant lease agreement with the spouse, KimD and his/her domicile in pregnancy, with the amount of KRW 20,000,000 (the remaining payment date shall be January 19, 2014), from January 19, 2014 to January 18, 2016, and the Plaintiff received the instant lease agreement from HanB as the remainder of KRW 17,00,000 among the lease deposit, and the remainder of KRW 17,00,000 among the remainder of January 17, 2014 (the remainder of KRW 2,00,000,000, the remainder of KRW 17,000,000 from the remainder of KRW 10,000,000, the remainder of the lease deposit, and the remainder of KRW 10,50,710,70,75,710).

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff constitutes a small-sum lessee with the top priority repayment right under the Housing Lease Protection Act, barring special circumstances, and thus, the Plaintiff should delete some of the dividend amount to the Defendant and distribute it to the Plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

As to this, the Defendant asserted that ① the instant real estate was subject to the establishment of a collective security right above the market price, ② there was a registration of seizure by OO, OO, OO, and the Republic of Korea (OOO). ② From the commencement date of the auction of this case, the Plaintiff paid the remainder on January 17, 2014, and completed the move-in report and the fixed date at least ten (10) days before the remainder payment date; ③ the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the head of 20,000,000 won which is much lower than the market price of the instant real estate; ④ the instant real estate was subject to the move-in report with the Plaintiff’s mother, and the Plaintiff’s spouse, KimD was subject to a move-in report at other residential places, and thus, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff’s allegation that there was a lack of evidence to prove that there was a lack of evidence to prove the source of the instant lease agreement and that there was a lack of evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was an illegal auction.

Meanwhile, in light of the above circumstances, the defendant asserts that the lease contract of this case constitutes a speculative act, but the argument about the revocation of fraudulent act cannot be exercised as a defense without seeking a declaration of revocation by means of a lawsuit. Therefore, the above argument is without merit without further review.

4. Conclusion

Thus, it is reasonable to correct the dividend amount of the Plaintiff as KRW 22,377,94 against the Defendant in the instant dividend table as KRW 22,377,94, and the dividend amount of the Plaintiff as KRW 20,000,000 in each of the instant dividend table. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is reasonable, and therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition.