[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and two others (Attorneys Park Yong-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

March 5, 2013

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

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

As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), Defendant 1 performed the procedure for the registration of the Incheon District Court and the cancellation registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis completed on May 1, 1997 with the registration of the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis, and Defendant New Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant New Card Co., Ltd”) and Defendant Han Life Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Life”) expressed their intent to consent to the cancellation of the above right to lease on a deposit basis. Defendant 1 delivered the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and paid the money calculated by the ratio of KRW 625,000 per month from September 13, 2012 to the completion of delivery.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

(1) On September 10, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from Nonparty 3 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on September 12, 2012, as follows.

(2) Defendant 1: (a) determined on May 1, 1997 as the Incheon District Court’s registration and receipt of the Incheon District Court KRW 50 million; (b) Nonparty 1, the person having chonsegwon, and April 26, 199, with the term of 585.19; and (c) completed the additional registration of the transfer of the right to lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “the right to lease on a deposit basis”) from Nonparty 1, who completed the registration of the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “the right to lease on a deposit basis”); and (d) completed the additional registration of the transfer of the right to lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “the right to lease on a deposit basis”).

(3) On January 2, 2008, the Defendant New Card obtained the original copy of the payment order concerning the credit card payment claim against Defendant 1 as the executive title and completed the additional registration of seizure and collection order of the right to lease on a deposit basis with respect to the right to lease on a deposit basis as Incheon District Court’s registration and receipt No. 44917 on April 22, 2008, and completed the additional registration of seizure of the right to lease on a deposit basis as to the right to lease on a deposit basis as Seoul District Court’s registration and receipt No. 44917 on April 22, 2008. The Defendant’s life insurance on May 10, 2009 is a person who completed the additional registration of seizure of the right to lease on a deposit basis as Seoul Central District Court’s registration and receipt by the Incheon District Court’s 5030303 on May 27, 2009.

B. Voluntary auction, claim report, etc. on the instant real estate

(1) On June 16, 197, after the registration of the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis of this case was completed, Nonparty 4 entered into a mortgage agreement with Nonparty 2. On June 23, 1997, the Incheon District Court completed the registration of the Incheon District Court and the registration of the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis of this case to Nonparty 2 as the maximum debt amount of KRW 350 million, the debtor, Nonparty 4, and Nonparty 2 as the mortgagee of the right to lease on a deposit basis of the right to lease on a deposit basis of the right to lease on a deposit basis of the right to lease on a deposit basis of the right to lease on a deposit basis of the right to lease on a deposit basis of the right to lease on a deposit basis of the right to lease on a deposit basis of the right to lease on a deposit basis.

(2) On May 31, 201, the period during which the demand for distribution was completed, the Defendant New Card submitted a credit account statement of the total amount of the claims calculated by the execution court on the grounds that “the Incheon District Court obtained the ruling of seizure and collection order prior to the registration of the decision on the commencement of auction to preserve and recover the credit card rent claim against the debtor” (No. 2007TTTTT13949 of the Incheon District Court).

(3) On the other hand, the executing court shall prepare and keep a detailed statement of the goods to be sold, stating "the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case shall not be extinguished by sale, and shall also state the same purport in the public notice

(4) On July 20, 2012, Nonparty 3 was awarded a bid of KRW 61,100,000, the highest price of the instant real estate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 25, 2012. On August 27, 2012, Nonparty 3 drafted a distribution schedule that: (a) out of the proceeds of sale, the amount of KRW 66,670,840 (the total amount of deposit and interest, etc. was added to the proceeds of sale) to be distributed, the amount of KRW 5,679,210, the remainder of KRW 58,672,090, and the amount of KRW 5,679,210, and the remaining amount of KRW 58,672,090, to Nonparty 2, the mortgagee, the mortgagee

(5) Since then, the registration of the instant chonsegwon was left without being entrusted with cancellation, and the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from Nonparty 3 on September 10, 2012 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in its name on September 10, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since Defendant New Card, who was the person having chonsegwon of this case, demanded a distribution by submitting a claim statement to the executing court on behalf of Defendant 1, who was the person having chonsegwon of this case, the instant chonsegwon was extinguished by sale pursuant to Article 88 of the Civil Execution Act.

(2) Accordingly, Defendant 1 is obligated to take the procedure for registration of cancellation on the instant chonsegwon against the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant real estate, and pay KRW 625,000 for monthly rent calculated by converting the deposit amount of KRW 50 million from September 13, 2012 to monthly rent from September 13, 2012, the date of acquisition of the Plaintiff’s ownership, from September 13, 2012 to the date of delivery. Defendant New Card and Lifelong Card are interested parties who completed the additional registration of seizure on the claim of the instant right to lease on a deposit basis, and have the obligation to accept the procedure

B. Determination

(1) Article 91 of the Civil Execution Act provides that “The superficies, easements, chonsegwon, and registered leaseholds shall be extinguished by sale if they cannot oppose the claims for mortgage, seizure, or provisional seizure (Paragraph 3), and superficies, easements, chonsegwon, and registered leaseholds other than the cases of Paragraph 3 shall be acquired by the purchaser. However, in the case of chonsegwon, the right of lease on a deposit basis shall be extinguished by sale if a person having a right of lease on a deposit basis demands a distribution pursuant to Article 88.”

(2) As to the instant case, since the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case’s lease on a deposit basis and the registration date of this case’s lease on a deposit basis are the same as seen earlier, the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case’s lease on a deposit basis is not naturally extinguished by sale, but shall be extinguished by sale only by Defendant 1’s demand for distribution, who is the person having chonsegwon capable of demand for distribution. The content of the account statement of the Defendant’s credit card is merely merely that Defendant 1 should demand distribution by obtaining a seizure and collection order concerning the right to use the credit card deposit and the claim for refund of deposit money for the preservation and recovery of the credit card usage deposit claims against Defendant 1, and it is not sufficient to recognize that Defendant 1’s credit card company received a demand for distribution by subrogation of Defendant 1 as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that Defendant 1, as seen earlier, was based on the premise that the execution court did not extinguish due to sale of this case’s lease on a deposit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety for reasons.

[Attachment]

Judges fixed interference