Whether it is a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act

The fact that the cash has been withdrawn immediately after cash transfer seems to be for the creation of evidentiary materials, and it cannot be deemed to be a small amount lessee because there is no details of submission of particular data on the source or use after withdrawal of the money.

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

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

From among the distribution schedule prepared by the same court on January 30, 2008 in the case of voluntary auction at the Incheon District Court Decision 2007Hu37846, the amount of 60,000,000 won for the defendant Industrial Bank of Korea shall be changed to 43,823,531 won, the amount of 264,210 won for the defendant's Republic of Korea and the amount of 1,559,321 won for the defendant's Republic of Korea shall be deleted, and the amount of 18,00,000 won for the plaintiff shall be corrected to distribute the amount of 18,00,000 won to the plaintiff (the amount of 1,559,321 won for the defendant's ○ at the ongoing conciliation date of September 26, 2008). The adjustment was established between the plaintiff

1. Basic facts

A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was owned by Kim○, and upon the application for voluntary auction by the Defendant Industrial Bank of Korea, Incheon District Court Decision 2007Hu37846, Jun. 18, 2007.

B. On May 31, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report with the domicile of the instant real estate, and on the same day, the Plaintiff was equipped with a fixed date on May 29, 2007, stating the lease deposit of KRW 18,00,000, which was written in the instant real estate. The Plaintiff asserted that he is a small lessee of the instant real estate on August 27, 2007 while the said auction procedure is in progress, and filed a report on the right and demand for distribution with the auction court.

C. On January 30, 2008, the auction court set out a distribution schedule with the amount of KRW 85,901,568 remaining after deducting the execution cost, out of the amount to be distributed on the date of distribution of the above auction procedure, and distributes it to the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, which is the mortgagee, as the first priority, KRW 24,078,037, and KRW 60,000,000 to the Industrial Bank of Korea, which is the mortgagee, as the second priority, and KRW 264,210 to the defendant Republic of Korea, who is the holder of the right to issue the third priority, as the third priority, to distribute KRW 1,559.321 to Kim ○.

D. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against KRW 14,176,469 among the entire dividends to Kim○, the entire dividends to the Defendant’s Republic of Korea, and the dividends to the Defendant Industrial Bank of Korea, and filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul's Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The assertion

The plaintiff did not report a marriage, but it is unfair to exclude the plaintiff as a small tenant under the Housing Lease Protection Act because the plaintiff did not report a marriage between the non-party Kim Jong-dong and the non-party Kim Jong-dong 590- ○○ Dong, Seocheon-dong 590- ○, ○, 000,000 won out of the rent deposit of 690- ○○ Dong, 690- ○,000,000 won, and entered into a lease contract and completed a move-in report with respect to the real estate in cash and completed the move-in report. Therefore, the defendants asserted that it is unfair to exclude the plaintiff as a small tenant under the Housing Lease Protection Act, considering that the time when the plaintiff asserted that the lease contract was concluded is immediately prior to the decision to commence the auction and that the licensed real estate agent stated in the instant lease contract is an ordinary licensed real estate agent in the lease contract

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as follows, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 3-4-1, 5-1, and 9, which correspond to the plaintiff's assertion, it is difficult to believe that Gap evidence Nos. 2-2, 3-3, 5-4, 5-7, 6-6 through 8-7, 10, and 10 of witness evidence Nos. 10, and 10 of witness evidence Nos. 2-2, 2-1, 3-4-1, 5-1, and 9, which correspond to the plaintiff's assertion. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(1) On May 29, 2007, the Plaintiff prepared a lease contract on the instant real estate of Kim○, and paid 1.5 million won as down payment to Kim○○, the Plaintiff received in cash the Plaintiff’s share of KRW 26 million from among the rent deposit for a house that was in a de facto marital relationship with Kim○, while settling into a de facto marital relationship with Kim○, and remitted the remainder of KRW 500,000 to Kim○’s bank account. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff directly paid brokerage fees or public charges for settlement. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 16 million from the branch of our bank to the financial account of Kim○○, and the Plaintiff did not immediately withdraw KRW 16 million from the branch of our bank after 25:0,000 to the cash account of the same bank. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not actually withdraw the rent of KRW 16 million,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s source or public charges, the Plaintiff did not withdraw the money to the said lessor’s bank account.

(2) In the auction procedure, the value of the instant real estate was assessed to be KRW 65 million, and around May 2007, the real estate in this case was registered with the establishment registration (the maximum amount of claims 27 million) and the establishment registration (the maximum amount of claims 60 million) of the establishment registration (the maximum amount of claims) of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation around the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation and the Defendant Industrial Bank of Korea around the establishment registration (the maximum amount of claims 60 million). Thus, there are many cases where the total amount of the deposit can not be guaranteed even if the lessee who is a small amount of deposit can be guaranteed the amount of the deposit. As such, there are many cases where there is a high possibility that the auction will be commenced between million and legal relations complicated. Accordingly, it is doubtful as to whether there is a considerable reason for the lease of the instant building by paying the deposit to the extent exceeding the small amount of deposit guaranteed under such circumstances.

(3) On May 31, 2007, the defendant Industrial Bank of Korea issued a notice of scheduled auction execution of the real estate of this case to Kim ○ by content-certified mail, which demanded the repayment of the loan around May 2007. In this situation, on May 29, 2007, the plaintiff prepared a lease contract on the real estate of this case with Kim ○, and on June 18, 2007, 2007, there was a decision to commence the expense of the real estate of this case on June 18, 2007.

(4) On May 29, 2007, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement on the instant real estate with Kim ○ on June 14, 2007 on the date of payment of the remainder, and paid all the lease deposit on May 31, 2007, which was after this framework. Thus, there is no special circumstance that the Plaintiff should pay the lease deposit after the contract date and make a change in the remainder payment date.

(5) In the auction procedure for the instant real estate, the Plaintiff’s mother, participated in the bidding on behalf of the ○○○○○○○○, and eventually, he purchased the instant real estate on behalf of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○. The dong○○○○, even though she was the fourth degree of dong○○○○○○○○○, was an exaggerated act to create data that the Plaintiff had been in a lessee

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the plaintiff is a small tenant with opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act shall be filed as ordered by the decision.