Whether it is a small lessee entitled to protection under the Housing Lease Protection Act;

Even if it is true that the apartment house has been paid as a substitute for the subcontract price, it is necessary to register ownership and register transfer in order for the owner to acquire the ownership at a time and transfer the ownership to another person.

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

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

Defendant ○○ shall pay to the Plaintiff 17,557,635 won, Defendant Republic of Korea 10,442,365 won, and 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the instant complaint to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. From July 31, 1995, ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (former name was ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., but '○○ Construction' was changed to its current name on July 31, 1995, and ' without division'), ○○○○○○-dong, Seoul 1271-302, 303 newly constructed 2 apartment houses from around 1992. Although the said 2 apartment houses were completed, the said 2 apartment houses were completed, it was impossible to complete the registration of the said 1 apartment houses and their sectional ownership rights.

B. Around August 1993, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with ○○○, one of the managers of ○ Construction, and one of the above persons, on 203 of the instant apartment houses, and completed a move-in report on March 26, 1994, and received a fixed date on March 3, 1995. Around March 3, 1995, the Plaintiff entered the lease agreement with 28,000,000 won as to 203 of the instant apartment houses. Around August 1993, in the indication column of real estate which is the object of the lease of the said lease agreement: ○○○○-dong 1271-302, a building: 20 square meters and 200 square meters: at the time of the move-in report, only the said move-in report was made as ○○○○-dong, Seoul ○○-dong 1271-303

C. On February 12, 2004, Defendant head of ○○ Construction, a creditor of ○○ Construction, filed an application for compulsory auction of real estate under the jurisdiction of this court as to the entire sectional ownership (19 households) of the instant tenement house (19 households) which was originally acquired by ○○ Construction on February 12, 2004, and the decision to commence compulsory auction was issued by this court on July 22, 2004. The registration of the decision to commence compulsory auction was completed on July 26, 2004, and at the same time, the registration of the decision to commence compulsory auction was completed on July 26, 2004, and at the same time, each sectional ownership

D. Of the row housing in the instant case, 201 and 301 were concluded by the withdrawal of a request for auction by Defendant head of Defendant head of Defendant ○○○○, but the compulsory auction procedure has been initiated for the remaining 17 households including 203 households, and each successful bidder has completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of successful bidder after the successful bid was successful. The Plaintiff filed an application for a report of right and a demand for distribution as a lessee under the above 203 on October 6, 2004.

E. However, on the date of distribution opened on October 28, 2005, the amount of KRW 35,130,240, which was actually distributed after deducting the execution cost from the proceeds of sale, was distributed to the Seongbuk-gu Office of Seongbuk-gu, which was the first priority among KRW 35,130,240, KRW 16,294,919, and KRW 17,57,635 to the defendant ○○○○, who was the second priority, who was the defendant Republic of Korea (○○○○). The plaintiff was excluded from the said dividends.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1-5, 7, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-3, each entry, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On August 31, 1992, ○○○○○, Seoul, ○○○-dong, 1271-302, and 303 ○○○-dong, 1271-302, and 303 ○○-dong, including the instant apartment house, subcontracted the construction of two new apartment houses and received 8 households including 203 apartment houses as substitute payments for the subcontract price. The registration of preservation of ownership of the said apartment house was not completed, but the above 8 households could not complete the registration of transfer of the above 8 households as a de facto owner, but the said 8 households could dispose of the above 8 households. Such 203 households were entitled to dispose of the above 8 households, and the Plaintiff was entitled to preferential payment by the fixed date after completing the move-in report of this case by leasing 203 from ○○○, and the Defendants received dividends from the Plaintiff during the dividend procedure, thereby causing losses to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, each of the Defendants is obligated to return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

(1) First of all, it is not reasonable to accept the statement of No. 6, which corresponds to the fact that Park ○, ○○, ○○○-dong, Seoul, 1271-302, and 303 units of apartment houses, received 8 households, including 203 units of apartment houses, as a substitute price for the subcontract price, and it is not sufficient to accept the statement of No. 7, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(2) Even though it was true that ○○○ had received eight households including 203 units of the instant apartment house from ○○ Construction as a substitute for the subcontract price, a new building should be registered for preservation of ownership and transfer of ownership in order for the owner of the building to acquire ownership originally and transfer the ownership to another person. As long as ○○○’s ownership transfer registration was not made on the registration of ownership transfer in the name of ○○ Construction, the ownership under the above 203 is still on ○ Construction, and ○○○○○○ is only a claim for registration of ownership transfer on the ground of a lease with ○○○○ Construction. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot assert the right to receive dividends and the right to receive dividends in the same order above the Defendants, the creditor of ○○○ Construction, on the ground of a lease with ○○○ Construction.

(3) Therefore, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have accrued unjust benefits on the ground that they received dividends in accordance with the distribution schedule excluded by the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is dismissed as there is no ground.