Plaintiff 2 and one other

Defendant 1 and two others

October 26, 2006

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

With respect to the auction of real estate rent in Daejeon District Court Decision 2004Ma34400, the amount of 14,000,000 won for Nonparty 1 and the amount of 5,00,000,000 won for Defendant 1 among the dividend table prepared by the same court on November 10, 2005 shall be deleted, respectively, and the amount of 14,00,000,000 won for Plaintiff 2 shall be 25,015,520 won, the amount of 14,00,000 won for Plaintiff 1 shall be corrected to 20,000 won, respectively.

1. The progress of the auction procedure;

A. At the request of the Gayang-dong community credit cooperatives, the auction procedure for the sale of real estate was initiated with the Daejeon District Court 2004 Mata-34400 on the land and the multi-family house with the third floor above the ground owned by Nonparty 2 (hereinafter “multi-family house in this case”).

B. The Plaintiffs, Nonparty 1, and Defendant 1 asserted that they were lessees under the Housing Lease Protection Act on the instant multi-family house, and filed a report on rights and demand for distribution.

C. After the sale of the multi-family house, etc. of this case, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that the plaintiffs and the non-party 1 as small lessee each of KRW 14 million among the amount to be distributed by deducting the execution cost from the sale price on November 10, 2005, the date of distribution, 320,597,110, which was the date of distribution, and 5 million won to the non-party 1 as small lessee in each order of priority.

D. The Plaintiffs appeared on the date of the above distribution and stated an objection against the full amount of the dividends to Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1, and then filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution on November 16, 2005.

E. Nonparty 1 died on March 1, 2005 and succeeded to Defendant 2 and 3.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that, unlike the move-in report, the non-party 1 was a person living with the non-party 2 and did not actually reside in the multi-family house in this case, and that the defendant 1 was living with the non-party 2's children living together with the non-party 4 on December 2004, when taking into account these circumstances, the non-party 1 and the defendant 1 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were the non-party 1 were the non-party. Thus, the above distribution schedule

B. Determination

On November 25, 2002, the defendant 1 leased the non-party 2 the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-Dong non-Dong non-Dong non-Dong non-Dong 02 from the same date for 24 months from the same date, and filed a move-in report on the same day. On April 5, 2004, the non-party 1 leased the non-Dong non-Dong 01 from the non-party 2 as 24 months on the lease on April 30 of the same year with the period of 15 million won as 24 months and transferred on April 12 of the same year to obtain the fixed date of August 12 of the same year, the fact that the non-party 1 received the fixed date of August 2 of the same year is not in dispute between the parties, or Eul evidence Nos. 3, Eul 1, Eul, Eul evidence No. 5-1, 6 or 7-1, Eul evidence No. 7, or evidence No. 8-4.

In fact, Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1 appear to have lawfully concluded a lease agreement with Nonparty 2 on the instant multi-family house, and there is no evidence to acknowledge whether each lease agreement is false or not, as alleged by the Plaintiffs.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Mobile State