Distribution Order for the goods at the auction

The amount for which the right to preferential payment is recognized pursuant to the Housing Lease Protection Act without the enforcement title of the lessee shall be limited to the security deposit, and the delay damages shall be divided into the general creditor and divided distribution only

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

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

Cheong-gu Office

Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on September 21, 2007 with respect to the compulsory auction case for real estate at Seoul Southern District Court 2007taeng 4674, the amount of dividends to the defendant Republic of Korea is 25,245,648 won, the amount of dividends to the defendant Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the amount of dividends of 1,474,160 won to the defendant Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the amount of dividends to the defendant Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, shall be deleted, and the amount of dividends of 26,937,

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, from September 00, 200 on September 9, 200, leased the lease deposit of KRW 60,000,000,000 from the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 00,000,000,000 from October 25, 2002 to October 25, 2004, and completed the move-in and move-in report at that time, and received the fixed date around May 25, 2004.

B. As to the instant real estate, on March 22, 2004, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Kim00 on the grounds of sale as of February 28, 2004. On May 18, 2004, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of 00 on the grounds of sale as of May 10, 2004.

C. On June 30, 2005, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the return of lease deposit against the Incheon District Court Decision 2000Da197141, and on June 30, 2005, "00 shall be paid to the plaintiff 65 million won and the amount equivalent to 20% per annum from December 21, 2004 to the date of full payment" was judged in favor of the plaintiff, and upon filing an application for compulsory auction with respect to the real estate of this case with the claim for the above judgment claim as the claim for compulsory auction, this court decided to commence compulsory auction as of February 26, 2007 and proceeded with the auction procedure as to the above real estate, and the plaintiff filed a report on the lease principal guarantee against the above 00 million won on May 17, 2007, and damages for delay and damages for delay from 35,744,521 to 201,204 won and damages for distribution from February 21, 2007.

D. As the real estate of this case was successful in the above auction procedure, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule with the content that, on September 21, 2007, the amount of KRW 91,937,658, the date of distribution, the actual distribution of KRW 207,510 (the pertinent tax), KRW 217,850 (the automobile tax) to the defendant Gangseo-gu Office, KRW 1,266,650 (the acquisition tax) to the defendant Gangseo-gu Office, KRW 1,266,650 (the automobile tax) to the defendant Gangseo-gu Office, and KRW 65,00,000 to the plaintiff, and KRW 25,245,648 to the defendant's Republic of Korea (the value-added tax) to distribute the amount of KRW 45,648, respectively

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A: Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17 (including paper numbers), Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff asserts that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of 000 was unlawful, since the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of 000 was completed on the ground that 000 had been made on the basis of 000 representative regardless of the intention of 000, and again, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of 000 is null and void all of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of 000 and 000.

B. Determination

Then, considering the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff’s request for distribution of 00 real estate under the name of the Plaintiff’s owner of the Housing Lease Protection Act cannot be made under the premise that the Plaintiff’s request for distribution of 00 real estate was made under the name of 00, and (b) the Plaintiff’s request for distribution of 00 real estate was made under the name of 00, and thus, (c) the Plaintiff’s request for distribution of 00 real estate was made under the name of 00, which was made under the name of 00, and thus, (d) the Plaintiff’s request for distribution of 00 real estate under the name of 00, which was made under the name of 00, which was made under the name of 00, which was made under the premise that the Plaintiff’s request for distribution of 00 real estate was made under the name of 00, which was made under the name of 000, which was made under the title of 000.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed without any justifiable reason.