Whether there exists the claim to reduce the price

It is not possible to exercise a claim for price reduction against the debtor without rescission of the contract, and claim the return of the proceeds equivalent to the lease deposit with opposing power in the object of auction against the creditors who are distributed the proceeds of sale on the grounds of the debtor's insolvency.

Article 575 of the Civil Code / [The Cases of Restricted Real Rights and Seller's Liability for Warranty]

Article 578 of the Civil Code / [Sale and Seller's Liability for Warranty]

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay 70,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. As a result of the disposition on default of KRW 6,424,050 for value-added tax of KRW 726,085,610 for 206 for the highest scrap metal, and KRW 732,509,660 for the total amount of KRW 732,560 for the total amount of KRW 6,424,05,00 for the highest scrap metal, the Defendant’s National Tax Service’s ○○○○○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○○○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○-dong, and the Korea Asset Management Corporation assigned the instant apartment to conduct the

B. On March 22, 2007, the Plaintiff received a decision of sale of KRW 266,300,000 from the sale price on March 22, 2007 in the above public sale procedure, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

C. On the other hand, on June 16, 2006, the establishment registration (the maximum bond amount of KRW 178,800,000, and the debtor's maximum bond amount of KRW 170,000) was completed with respect to the apartment of this case by the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (the "CFC"), and the new ○○ leased the apartment of this case to KRW 70,000,000, and made a move-in report on July 13, 2006.

D. On April 18, 2007, the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation was exempted from the collateral obligation of the above collateral security, but it did not cancel the registration of the establishment of the above collateral security. On June 1, 2007, the Korea Asset Management Corporation submitted to the Korea Asset Management Corporation a statement of the claim that the amount of the collateral security obligation of the above collateral security was fully repaid. On June 15, 2007, the Korea Asset Management Corporation notified the Plaintiff on June 15, 2007 of the change of a purchaser's right due to the cancellation of the priority mortgage by the NACF's status as a lessee, and requested the Plaintiff to postpone the sale price and to reduce the sales price under a tax disposition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the right of lease of 70,000,000 won of the new apartment of this case has no opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act because of the first priority mortgage of the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation, the highest amount of ○○, upon repayment of the secured debt by the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation on April 18, 2007, the plaintiff purchased the apartment of this case in 266,30,000 won without gathering the fact. Since the plaintiff succeeded to the status of the lessor and bears the duty of return of 70,000,000 won, the plaintiff claimed that the highest amount of ○○, 70,000,000 won has the right of reduction of the price under Article 578 (1) of the Civil Act with respect to the highest amount of ○○, as long as the maximum amount of ○,000 won has no sufficient ability to do so, the plaintiff paid the amount to the defendant who received the distribution of the price under Article 578 (2) of the Civil Act.

B. Determination

1) Relevant statutes

(1) Where the subject matter of sale becomes the subject matter of a superficies, servitude, chonsegwon, right of retention, or pledge and the buyer was unaware thereof, the buyer may rescind the contract only if the objective of the contract is not attainable thereby. In other cases the buyer may only claim damages. (2) The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall apply mutatis mutandis to cases where there exists no servitude existing for the subject matter of the sale, or a lease contract registered on such immovables exists.

Article 578 (Sale by Auction and Seller's Liability for Warranty) (1) In the case of auction, a successful bidder may demand an obligor to cancel the contract or to reduce the price under the preceding eight Articles. (2) In the case of the preceding paragraph, if the obligor is not in person, the successful bidder may demand the obligee who has received distributions of the price to return the whole or part of the price.

(4) Articles 575 (1) and (3) and 578 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to cases where a house which becomes the object of a lease under this Act becomes the object of a sale or auction.

2) Claim for the reduction of price under Article 578(2) and (1) of the Civil Act

Article 578 (1) of the Civil Act provides that "a claim for cancellation of the contract or for reduction of the price" can be made. Here, a claim for reduction of the price can be made in cases where part of the right to the auction object belongs to another person (Article 572 of the Civil Act), or in cases where part of the right to the auction object falls short of quantity or is destroyed (Article 574 of the Civil Act), and a claim for reduction of the price can be made in proportion to the whole portion of the right not acquired by belongs to another person. It is reasonable to interpret that the object of auction is not included in the auction liability (Article 3 (3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act and Article 575 (1) of the Civil Act) in cases where the obligor is subject to restrictions on the right to claim for cancellation of the auction sale contract or the right to claim for reduction of the price for the auction (Article 570 through 577 of the Civil Act) for reasons other than the obligee's right to claim cancellation of the auction sale contract or the right to claim for reduction of the price cannot be interpreted as an obligee's right to claim for auction.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the plaintiff has the right to reduce the price is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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