Whether it is a legitimate tenant under the Housing Lease Protection Act

In spite of the absence of the fact that a legitimate lease contract was concluded, a false lease contract was prepared to rent one square, and accordingly, a request for distribution was made, and the preparation of a distribution schedule by an auction court except for the plaintiff's dividends is legitimate.

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. As to ○○○○○-si ○○○○○, ○○○-ri ○○○○○○, 504 Dong1902, and 1903, an application for the auction of real estate was filed on around 2004, around 70836, this court, and the auction procedure was in progress.

B. As a result of the sale of the above Nos. 1902 and 1903 in the above auction procedure, this court held on April 25, 2006 the date of distribution and distributed the amount of KRW 283,868,332 among the amount to be actually distributed, KRW 12,00,000 among the amount of KRW 283,868,332 to be distributed, and the amount of KRW 12,00,00 to Leeyang-si (a lessee of small amount of KRW 1902) and Leeyang-si (a lessee of small amount of KRW 1902), and the amount of KRW 428,480, KRW 200,00 to ○○ Bank (a mortgagee of small amount of KRW 1902), and excluded the Plaintiff from the distribution of dividends.

C. On the date of distribution of the instant case, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the Defendant’s dividend amount, and filed the instant lawsuit on May 1, 2006.

(In accordance with the grounds for recognition, each entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's claim and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On December 04, 2003, the Plaintiff leased the above 1902 room No. 15,000,000 won for lease deposit, and moved to the above 1902 on December 30, 2003, and completed the move-in report under the above 1902 on December 29, 2004, the Plaintiff is a small lessee who is entitled to receive dividends of the small amount deposit KRW 12,00,000 prior to the Defendant. However, the above distribution schedule should be distributed preferentially to the Defendant, and it should be corrected as described in the purport of the claim because it is unlawful by excluding the Plaintiff from the dividends. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that even though the Plaintiff did not rent the above 1902 room No. 1, the Plaintiff prepared a false lease contract and claimed that it is the most lessee who demanded the distribution.

B. Determination

According to the above evidence Nos. 2 and 3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act as to whether the plaintiff is a legitimate tenant under the Housing Lease Protection Act, the plaintiff prepared a lease contract with 15,00,000 won for lease deposit and 120,000 won for lease deposit. On April 29, 2004, it can be acknowledged that the fact that the plaintiff completed the move-in report with the apartment house of this case on April 29, 2004 is insufficient to recognize that the above fact is a legitimate tenant. The above evidence Nos. 5 is hard to believe that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, considering the above evidence Nos. 1-1 to 5, B, and 7, the whole statement of the above 1903 lease agreement with 190,000 won for lease deposit and 100,000 won for lease deposit and 100,000 won for the above 10,000 won for lease deposit and 100,00 won for the above 10.

3. Conclusion

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