Maapju-ro

[Defendant-Appellant] 1 and 1 others (Attorney Yoon Young-gu, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na14148 decided May 1, 201

on March 30, 2006

Suwon District Court Decision 2003Da50153 Decided January 14, 2005

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. Among the distribution schedule prepared by the Seoul District Court on November 28, 2003 with respect to a compulsory auction against the real estate (No. 76355) by the government branch of the Seoul District Court, the amount of dividends of KRW 30,000,000 and KRW 3,954,612 to the limited liability company specialized in the securitization against the defendant Han-gu (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant company") shall be deleted, respectively, and the amount of dividends of KRW 5,630,767 shall be corrected to KRW 39,585,379.

Due to this reason

1. Determination as to the basic facts and the claim against the defendant company (cite the judgment of the court of first instance);

The reasoning of the judgment that a party member should explain regarding this part is as follows: "after entering into an asset transfer contract with a successor intervenor on October 31, 2003, the defendant company transferred the secured debt of the above secured mortgage to the successor intervenor on October 31, 2003, and notified the fact of transferring the claim to the succeeding intervenor on December 3 of the same year," added "B" to "B" and "B" to "B" to "B" and the ground of the judgment of the first instance is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding "B-1, 2" to "B-1, 4-1, 4-2" following the evidence No. 4.

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant Song-hwan

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The above defendant prepared related documents, such as a lease contract, without entering into a real lease contract, and made a moving-in report on resident registration with respect to the apartment of this case. Even if the lease contract was concluded, the above defendant's husband's husband's attitude, who was in charge of the sale and lease business of the apartment of this case, did not pay the deposit money received from the non-party 1 to the non-party 1, and did not pay the deposit money to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 and did not pay the deposit money to the non-party 1. Thus, the above defendant is the most lessee.

(2) On the other hand, the above act constitutes a self-contract or both representation under Article 124 of the Civil Act and the above lease contract is null and void, on the other hand, on the one hand, on the behalf of the above defendant, or on the other hand, on the other hand, the above act constitutes a contract or both representation under Article 124 of the Civil Act.

(3) Therefore, among the instant distribution schedule, the said Defendant’s amount of KRW 30,000,000 should be deleted and the distribution schedule should be corrected as being distributed to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

(1) First, we examine whether the above defendant is the most lessee.

(A) If Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and testimony of the court of first instance, non-party 2 and non-party 4 of the first instance trial, the above defendant did not have paid 30,000,000 won of the lease deposit for the apartment of this case as the wife of the fruit trees who was in charge of the sale of the west-gu and Seoyang-gu, and the west-do did not directly pay the lease deposit for the apartment of this case, and it can be acknowledged that the above sub-party filed a lawsuit against the above sub-party 96Kadan5100 of the court against the above sub-party 1 against the above sub-party 1 of the apartment of this case by asserting that the above sub-party 1 was the occupant without permission.

(B) However, if the above evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 5, 6-1 or 3 of evidence Nos. 7-1 or 3 and the testimony of the above witness Nos. 2 and 7-1 or 3 were neglected, the above non-party Nos. 2 was accused of the non-party Nos. 3 on the ground that he embezzled company funds, the above non-party Nos. 3 was found to have embezzled, and the above non-party Nos. 3 was agreed to have the representative director acting on behalf of the non-party No. 3. 1. The non-party Nos. 9 entered into a lease contract with the above non-party No. 3 for about 8 months, and the non-party Nos. 4 and the above non-party Nos. 9 had the above non-party No. 9 entered the lease contract with the above non-party No. 9 with the above non-party No. 9 and entered the above non-party Nos. 9 with the above non-party No. 1's. 3 and the above non-party No. 9's.

(C) The above defendant's lease guarantee fee is the same as that of the non-party 1, and in 1995, the fact that the above non-party 1 had already obtained the fixed date in the lease contract, and it appears that the above non-party 1 did not raise any objection to the issue of lease deposit to the non-party 1 at the time of residing in the apartment of this case, and in light of all circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the above defendant is the most lessee who resides in the apartment of this case without concluding the lease contract of this case and paying the deposit for lease deposit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(2) Next, according to the above evidence as to whether the act of entering into the above lease agreement is invalid as it constitutes a self-contract or both parties acting on behalf of the above defendant or as the actual party to the above lease agreement, it cannot be deemed that the sub-party was acting on behalf of the above defendant and that the sub-party 3 was acting on behalf of the defendant, and there is no evidence to prove that the sub-party entered into the above lease agreement on behalf of the sub-party 3 as the party to the above lease. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without further review (in addition, even if the sub-party entered into the lease agreement on behalf of the sub-party 3 as the sub-party 3 as the party to the above lease. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion in this regard is without merit).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is without merit, and it is dismissed as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)