Incheon District Court 2010Kadan91526 ( October 14, 2011)

The lessee of a house is in the position of a provisional seizure creditor against the claim for the expropriation compensation.

The plaintiff, who is a housing lessee, is in the position of the creditor of provisional seizure against the claim for expropriation compensation for the building of this case, and the creditor of provisional seizure is treated the same as the general creditor in the distribution procedure, and the tax claimant takes priority over the general creditor, so it is reasonable to receive dividends in priority over the plaintiff who is a tax

2011Na21426 Demurrer against distribution

Shin XX

Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City and three others

Incheon District Court Decision 2010Gadan91526 Decided October 14, 2011

April 5, 2012

April 26, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. With respect to the distribution procedure case of the Incheon District Court 2010ta-Ma1903, the dividend amount of the defendant Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City shall be KRW 000,000,000,000 for the dividend amount of the defendant Seo-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, and KRW 00,000 for the dividend amount of the defendant's Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction: Seocheoncheon Tax Office) and KRW 000 for the defendant's Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction: Seocheon Tax Office), KRW 000 for the dividend amount of the defendant's Republic of Korea, KRW 00 for the defendant's Yeongdeungpo-gu, KRW 00 for the dividend amount of the defendant's Yeongdeungpo-gu, and KRW 00 for the plaintiff's NewA, respectively, shall be corrected to KRW 000.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "the entry" in Section 5 of the first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's third letter, "the article of this case", "the building of this case", and "the building of this case", and "the article of this case" in Section 3 of the first instance court's first instance court's decision are the same as the entry of the first instance court's decision, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main text

2. Judgment on the merits

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, as a housing lessee who is a preferential right holder with opposing power and fixed date, may exercise the subrogation right on the claim for the indemnity for expropriation stipulated by the expropriation of the instant building. As such, the Plaintiff shall be entitled to preferential payment in the instant dividend procedure, who is a preferential right holder and has a security deposit amount, in preference to the

B. Determination

However, even if a housing lease with opposing power and a fixed date is established for the building of this case to be expropriated, unless the legal basis for recognizing subrogation (Article 370 and Article 342 of the Civil Act) such as mortgage or pledge on the housing lease exists, the preferential effect recognized at the time of auction under the Civil Execution Act or public auction under the National Tax Collection Act pursuant to the provisions of Article 3-2 (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act cannot be said to be naturally transferred to the expropriation claim of this case due to the expropriation of the building of this case in the distribution procedure of this case. Therefore, the plaintiff is only in the status of the provisional attachment creditor on the land of this case, and the provisional attachment creditor is treated equally as the general creditor on the land of this case, and the tax payer is more treated as the general creditor on the land of this case, and it is justifiable to receive dividends in the priority than the plaintiff who is the general creditor on the land of this case. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.