Whether to recognize the lessee of small claims of demurrer against distribution as a lessee

The fact that a lease contract is concluded again for one column in an apartment after the conclusion of the lease contract for the whole building (a apartment) and the fact that it is not possible to prove the details of payment can not be considered as a true small-sum lessee.

Article 81 of the National Tax Collection Act

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

○○○ District Court Decision 2005No. 1681 regarding the auction case of real estate auction, which was prepared on November 4, 2005 by the above court, that KRW 14,00,000 for the Plaintiff, KRW 93,698,630 for the amount of dividends to Defendant ○ Credit Union, KRW 90,987,152 for the amount of dividends to Defendant ○○ Credit Union, KRW 11,279,52 for the amount of dividends to Defendant ○○ Credit Union, KRW 11,279,522 for each of the amount of dividends to Defendant ○○ Credit Union, shall be corrected.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 10, 2003, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on ○○ General Construction, the maximum debt amount, 97.5 million won, and the mortgage on ○○ Credit Cooperative, which was owned by the non-party ○○○○○○ Construction, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, and the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, and the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the 1

B. On November 4, 2005, the above court prepared a distribution schedule with a content that distributes 132,380 won to the head of the ○○ District Court (○○○○ District Court 2005Mota, 1681), Defendant ○○ Credit Cooperatives (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”), the applicant creditor, and 11,279,52 won to the head of the ○○ Credit Cooperatives (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) to distribute 93,69,52 won to the head of the ○○ Credit Cooperatives (hereinafter “the instant distribution schedule”).

C. The Plaintiff asserted that the above ○○ General Construction and the instant case were concluded with respect to one column among the buildings, and demanded the distribution of the lease deposit in the said distribution procedure, but was excluded from the distribution, but raised an objection as to the said distribution schedule by attending the said distribution date.

(Ground for recognition) Facts that there is no dispute, Gap 3, 4, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the distribution schedule of this case which was not distributed to the plaintiff is unfair even though he falls under the tenant of small amount under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the defendant asserts that the distribution schedule of this case is legitimate as the plaintiff is the most lessee.

B. Determination

Therefore, according to the facts as to whether the Plaintiff is a genuine lessee, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lease contract was concluded on April 13, 2004 between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1, and that the lease contract was concluded on April 13, 200 to 12 months, but it is recognized that the lease contract was concluded on April 13, 204, and that the Plaintiff had not been concluded on August 6, 2004, and that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to find that the lease contract was concluded on August 10, 200, and that the Plaintiff had not been registered on August 10, 200, on the premise that the lease contract was concluded on the premise that it was concluded on August 10, 204, and that the lease contract was concluded on the premise that it was concluded on August 10, 204, and that the Plaintiff had not been registered on the premise that the lease contract was concluded on the premise that the lease contract was concluded on March 24, 2004.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.