Appropriateness of the assertion that the security deposit for lease was under-paid on the distribution schedule

Since the plaintiff cannot be found to have entered into a lease agreement and paid the lease deposit, it is difficult to believe that the distribution schedule was mistakenly prepared.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. Each of the plaintiff's claims is dismissed.

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

The judgment that corrected the above distribution schedule to the Plaintiff by correcting the dividend amount of KRW 42,549,020 to the Republic of Korea from among the distribution schedule prepared by this court on July 25, 2008, which was 41,229,387, by removing the dividend amount of KRW 3,05,727 to the Defendant National Pension Corporation, the dividend amount of KRW 5,696,733 to the Defendant National Pension Corporation, and the dividend amount of KRW 1,927,907 to the Defendant Labor Welfare Corporation, respectively, and the dividend amount of KRW 12,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 22, 2008, at the request of ○○○○○-Eup, ○○○○○, and one parcel of land, 103 dong 301 (hereinafter “instant housing”), a distribution schedule (hereinafter “distribution schedule”) with the following contents was prepared in the voluntary auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), which was commenced on January 22, 2008 by the court of this case, at the beginning of January 25, 2008.

B. In the above auction procedure, the Plaintiff made a demand for distribution on the ground that it is a lessee (30,000,000 won as lease deposit), but was excluded from the dividend, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the entire dividend amount against the Defendants and filed the instant lawsuit.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute]

2. The plaintiff's assertion

On April 10, 2007, the Plaintiff paid 30,000,000 won for lease deposit and 30,500,000 won for each lease deposit with the former owner of the instant house (the former owner of the instant house) and the former owner of the instant house (the former owner of the instant house) and 30,000,000 won for each contract period of two years. Since the Plaintiff’s spouse’s ○○○○○ (the death of December 5, 2007) was unable to receive wages of 13,50,000 won for the former owner’s work as labor at the former owner’s company, the Plaintiff decided to substitute part of the lease deposit with 19,50,000 won for the above overdue interest. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the remainder of 19.5 million won (=30,000 won - 10,50,050

Therefore, among the above lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million, the dividend amount of KRW 12 million, which is the top priority repayment right under the Housing Lease Protection Act, should be distributed to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant dividend table should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

3. Determination

The evidence Nos. 2 and 30,000,000 won and the contract period from April 1, 2007 to April 2009 entered into a lease agreement on the housing of this case with the former owner on April 1, 2007. However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence Nos. 4 and 5-1, each of the above evidence Nos. 2 can be acknowledged when considering the whole purport of the pleadings, it cannot be acknowledged that the plaintiff actually entered into the lease agreement and actually paid the lease deposit, and it is difficult to acknowledge the above facts even if Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 15-1, 15-1, 205, and testimony of witnessism.

① As to the instant housing, prior to the date of conclusion of the lease agreement asserted by the Plaintiff, the mortgage was established by ○○ Bank, Inc. with the maximum debt amount of KRW 60,000,000, as well as the fact that each registration of seizure was completed by the Defendants.

(2) The lease contract only contains a seal of the moving rate (in accordance with the testimony of the witness ○○ism, the seal of the ○○ism) in the brokerage column, without the signature and seal of the licensed real estate agent and the fixed date.

③ Under the lease contract, KRW 3 million out of the lease deposit is paid in the intermediate payment of KRW 7 million on April 5, 2007, and the remainder of KRW 20 million on April 10, 2007. However, according to the evidence presented by the Plaintiff, the payment of the lease deposit is deemed to have been withdrawn in the Plaintiff’s deposit account on April 10, 2007, and the content of the contract is inconsistent with the contract.

④ In addition, the said KRW 19,500,000 also was deposited by the lessor into the account of the former owner, not the former owner, but the representative director who is the spouse of the former owner, and the latter is the type of the network transfer-based.

Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case, which is premised on the premise that the plaintiff is a legitimate lessee entitled to receive the distribution, is all without merit, and it is dismissed.