1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The lessor, who is the lessor of the Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D Apartment E (hereinafter “instant apartment”) deposited KRW 62,623,334, which was deducted from the rent in arrears, etc. from the leased deposit amount of KRW 70,00,00,00 for the reason that the provisional attachment, assignment notification, seizure, etc. were concurrent with respect to the claim for the return of the lease deposit held by the lessee G to the lessor upon the termination of the lease (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. In Seoul Central District Court’s distribution procedure case on the said deposit (hereinafter “instant distribution procedure”), the Seoul Central District Court drafted a distribution schedule to distribute all the amount of KRW 62,659,076 to the Defendant, which is to be distributed to the Defendant by adding interest on October 26, 2018 and deducting the enforcement cost.

C. On October 26, 2018, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution open on October 26, 2018, and raised an objection regarding KRW 29,650,000 among the amount of dividends against the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on November 1, 2018, within seven days.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 2-2, Eul 5-9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the cause of the claim is a small-sum lessee with opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the amount entitled to preferential repayment out of the claim for the refund of the deposit in this case against G, falls under the claims subject to prohibition of seizure;

However, the Defendant’s provisional attachment of the claim to return the deposit of this case, and received the full amount of the lease deposit deposited through the instant distribution procedure in its status under the order of seizure and assignment of the claim to the provisional attachment, and thus, the part contrary to the prohibition of seizure is null and void.

After the provisional seizure by the Defendant, the Plaintiff leased money to G, a lessee of the instant apartment after the provisional seizure by the Defendant, and acquired the amount equivalent to KRW 45,00,00 from G out of the claim for the refund of the instant deposit in order to secure the claim, and the notification of the transfer of G’s assignment to the lessor F.