The distribution schedule except for the plaintiff who is only the most lessee is legitimate.

It is insufficient to see that the Plaintiff actually occupied the second floor of the building of this case. Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the Plaintiff is only the most genuine lessee, not the genuine lessee of the building of this case, and the distribution schedule except the Plaintiff’s dividends

Article 3-2 of the Housing Lease Protection Act

2016 grouped 23928 Demurrer against distribution

Red*

Republic of Korea and three others

1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Suwon District Court 2015TWD 2000 won, 30,000 won, 19,962,62,623 won, 286,310 won, 46,841 won, 46,841 won, 45,00,00 won, 7,790,528 won, and 50,000 won, 19,62,62,623 won, and 2,286,310 won for the Republic of Korea, and 46,841 won for the Republic of Korea, and 45,00,000 won, and 50,000,00 won, for the Plaintiff, among the distribution schedule prepared by the same court on May 31, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

가. 원고는 2009. 2. 5. 김▲▲과 사이에, 수원시 oo동 000-0 대 198.6㎡ 지상 건물(이하 '이 사건 건물'이라 한다) 2층 방 2개에 관하여 임대차보증금 50,000,000원(계약금 10,000,000원은 계약 시, 중도금 20,000,000원은 2008. 10. 11., 잔금 20,000,000원은 2009. 1. 10. 각 지급), 임대차기간 2009. 1. 10.부터 2012. 1. 10.까지로 정하여 임대차계약을 체결한 다음, 2009. 3. 16. '수원시 oo구 oo로 00번길 00(oo동)'으로 전입신고를 마치고, 같은 날 수원시 oo구청장으로부터 위 임대차계약서에 확정일자를 받았다.

나. 수원시 oo구 oo동 000-0 대 198.6㎡ 및 그 지상 이 사건 건물에 관하여 유△△가 2011. 5. 17. 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다가, 2012. 8. 24. 김▽▽가 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다. 위 토지 및 건물에 관하여는 2008. 8. 5. 채권최고액 280,000,000원, 채무자 김▲▲, 근저당권자 XX새마을금고인 근저당권설정등기가, 2013. 5. 9. 채권최고액 45,000,000원, 채무자 김▽▽, 근저당권자 피고 신CC으로 하는 근저당권설정등기가 마쳐져 있었는데, 피고 신CC은 위 토지 및 이 사건 건물에 대하여 수원지방법원 2015타경0000호로 임의경매를 신청하였고, 위 법원은 2015. 2. 25. 임의경매개시결정을 하여 같은 날 임의경매개시 기입등기가 마쳐졌다. 위 임의경매 사건에서 2016. 5. 2. 위 토지 및 건물이 각 1/2 지분씩 박YY, 김ZZ에게 매각되었다.

C. In the foregoing voluntary auction case, on September 9, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) determined one column of the second floor of the instant building at the Suwon District Court as KRW 50,000; (b) leased the instant building from the relevant △△△△△△; (c) completed the move-in report on the same day on March 16, 2009 and received the fixed date; and (d) applied for a report on rights and a demand for distribution.

D. On May 31, 2016, Suwon District Court: (a) distributed the Plaintiff’s dividends; (b) distributed the dividends amount of KRW 946,230,00 to Suwon-si, which is the holder of the first priority distribution (the pertinent tax); (c) KRW 251,237,215; and (d) KRW 30,00,00 to Defendant UB, the lessee of the third priority distribution date; (d) KRW 466,841; (c) KRW 466,841; (d) KRW 460; (e) KRW 2,286,310; (e) KRW 40; and (e) KRW 45,00,00 to Defendant 2, the holder of the second priority distribution order; and (e) prepared the distribution schedule among the above dividends amount of KRW 70; (e) KRW 360,70; (e) KRW 360,700; and (e) the said dividends amount to Defendant 2, 30707,0700.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

Although the Plaintiff is a small lessee who is protected under the Housing Lease Protection Act as a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act and is entitled to receive a preferential distribution of the small amount of deposit out of the lease deposit, the Plaintiff asserts that the distribution schedule of this case, excluding the Plaintiff’s dividends, should be revised to the effect that the Plaintiff distributes KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and that the distribution schedule should be revised to the effect that the amount of dividend of the Defendants should be reduced.

Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that the instant distribution schedule, except the Plaintiff’s dividends, is lawful, because the Plaintiff is the most lessee.

3. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the above facts and evidence Nos. 9, 10, 2 through 10, 15, and 19-2 of the evidence Nos. 19-2, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff is only the person who is not the real lessee of the building of this case, and the items of evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, 11, 12-1, 2, and 13 are insufficient to reverse the above recognition solely on the basis of each of the items of evidence Nos. 1, 5, 11, 12-1, 2, and 13 of the building of this case. Thus, the distribution schedule of this case is legitimate except for the

① In the instant voluntary auction procedure, the Plaintiff submitted another lease contract (No. 10) (No. 50,000,000 won from March 16, 2009 to December 31, 2015, using the lessor as the current △△△△△△△△△△△△, not the instant lease contract (Evidence A). The lease portion stated in the instant lease agreement is indicated as two floors of the instant building. The Plaintiff also received the fixed date as the second floor of the instant building, and the leased portion was also indicated as one square section of the instant building from the date of pleading from May 2009 to the date of pleading from March 16, 2016 (No. 10, Oct. 16, 2016). The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff occupied the second floor of the instant building by itself during the instant lawsuit procedure, and that the Plaintiff occupied the first floor of the instant building from the date of pleading from Oct. 16, 2016).

② The instant building is divided into two stores and two houses. The second floor is composed of two retail stores, two boilers, boiler rooms, one toilet, and two kitchens. The second floor is composed of three rooms, three wards, one room, and one kitchen. The first floor of the instant building was Defendant UBB had occupied 40 square meters of the building on October 15, 2010, and the second floor was completed on September 24, 2009 on the second floor of the instant building. The building was located on September 24, 2009 on the second floor of the instant building without having completed the move-in report on December 2, 2009. However, the Plaintiff was merely the Plaintiff’s spouse who occupied the instant building on March 11, 205, and the Plaintiff’s actual residence on December 215, 2015.

③ With respect to the payment of lease deposit, the Plaintiff: (a) the amount of KRW 26,00,000 on April 4, 2009, KRW 6,000,000 on April 10, 2009, KRW 6,000,000 on April 10, 2009, KRW 6,000 on April 10, 2009, KRW 6,000,000 on April 10, 209, KRW 6,000 on April 10, 200, KRW 26,000,000 on April 1, 200, and KRW 20,000 on the loan deposit in the name of △△△△△△△△; (b) the Plaintiff’s actual payment in lieu of the amount of the loan deposit in the name of △△△△△△△○ account; and (c) it is difficult to conclude the payment of the other KRW 10,000,000.

Even if the Plaintiff occupied the second floor, not the second floor of the instant building, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff lost possession of the second floor of the instant building, thereby extinguishing the opposing power of the instant lease agreement. As long as the Plaintiff did not file a report on the right under the lease agreement concluded with respect to the first floor of the instant building and file an application for demand for distribution, the Plaintiff’s objection against the distribution premised on the Plaintiff’s being a lessee of the said building is unlawful. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion appears as a mother

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.