A. The meaning of a small amount of deposit under Article 8 of the former Housing Lease Protection Act;

(b) Paragraph (3) of the Addenda to the Housing Lease Protection Act and small lessee;

A. Since the provisions of Article 8 of the former Housing Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 4188 of Dec. 30, 1989) and Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12930 of Feb. 19, 1990) are interpreted as having set the criteria for small amount deposit which is recognized as having preferential right to payment, it is not to have set the scope of the effect of preferential right to payment. Thus, if the deposit exceeds 5,00,000 won in the case of Seoul Special Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities under the former Housing Lease Protection Act, it is not recognized as having preferential

B. According to Article 3 of the Addenda of the Housing Lease Protection Act (Act No. 4188 of Dec. 30, 1989), a person who acquired a security right on a rental house prior to the enforcement of this Act shall be determined by the previous provisions, and in relation to a person who acquired a security right on a rental house prior to the enforcement of the current Act, whether the person is a small lessee under the former Housing Lease Protection Act

Article 8 of the former Housing Lease Protection Act (Amended by Act No. 4188, Dec. 30, 1989); Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 12930, Feb. 19, 1990); Article 3 (3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act (Amended by Act No. 4188, Dec. 30, 1989); Article 3 (3) of the Addenda

[Defendant-Appellee] Korea Industrial Bank of Korea

Defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 92Na15320 delivered on October 2, 1992

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's claim that the auction court is a small lessee on the date of the open distribution of January 15, 1992 and the co-defendant 1 and the non-party 2 of the court below's decision that the amount to be distributed should be distributed first to 5,000,000 won out of 7,000,000 won of each of their respective claims and the remaining amount should not be a small lessee under the former Housing Lease Protection Act, and that the defendant is not a small lessee under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 5,00,000,000 won or less should not be deemed to be a small lessee under the same Act, and the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim that the amount of the deposit is not more than 5,000,000 won in terms of social policy or policy, and that the above amount is not more than 00,5000,0000 won.

However, each provision of Article 8 of the former Housing Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 4188 of Dec. 30, 1989) and Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12930 of Feb. 19, 1990) shall be interpreted as setting the criteria for small-sum deposit with which preferential right to payment is granted, and it shall not be interpreted as setting the scope to which the right to preferential payment is effective. Thus, in the case of Seoul Special Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities under the former Housing Lease Protection Act, if the deposit exceeds 5,00,000 won, the right to preferential payment

Meanwhile, according to Article 3 of the Addenda of the amended Housing Lease Protection Act (Act No. 4188 of Dec. 30, 1989), the former provisions shall apply to a person who acquired a security right on a rental house prior to the enforcement of this Act, and in relation to the plaintiff who acquired a security right on the real estate of this case on Nov. 25, 1986 and Nov. 1, 1989 prior to the enforcement of the current Act, it shall be decided whether he is a small lessee under the former Housing Lease Protection Act. Thus, in the relation with the plaintiff who purchased a security right on the real estate of this case on Nov. 25, 1986, it shall be decided whether he is a small lessee under the former Housing Lease Protection Act. Thus, in the relation with the plaintiff, the defendant, who voluntarily asserts that the security right on the real estate of this

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant's above security deposit claim amounting to KRW 7,000,000 shall take precedence over the plaintiff's claim amounting to KRW 5,00,000, and rejected the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be deemed to have committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by interpreting Article 8 of the former Housing Lease Protection Act and Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and it is reasonable to point this out.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)