2015 grouped 31789 Demurrer against distribution

A limited liability company specialized in foreign exchange S.C.

A person shall be appointed.

March 23, 2016

April 20, 2016

1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on March 25, 2015, the amount of KRW 13,00,000 against the defendant in relation to the auction auction case B real estate in the Chuncheon District Court, the amount of KRW 108,279,119, KRW 121,279, and KRW 119, respectively, shall be corrected to KRW 121,279, and KRW 119.

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

The main text of paragraph (1) is as follows.

Preliminary:

1. The defendant and C as the apartment of this case, the 102-dong 1106 (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case") in the Hanju-si, Gangwon-do.

(2) The lease agreement entered into on May 5, 2014 and 10. shall be revoked.

2. The text of paragraph (1) shall be as follows;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 10, 2014, the Defendant leased the instant apartment from C with the lease deposit of KRW 13,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 400,000, and the lease term of KRW 27, 2014 from May 27, 2014 to May 27, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). On May 27, 2014, the Defendant made a move-in report on the said apartment and obtained a fixed date in the lease contract.

B. On the other hand, on January 28, 2013, our bank (hereinafter “Korea bank”) completed the registration of creation of a mortgage that consists of the debtor corporation Dana Design and the maximum debt amount of 2.40 million won with respect to the apartment of this case. On July 3, 2014, it applied for a voluntary auction on the apartment of this case, and the voluntary auction on the apartment of this case (hereinafter “auction”) started on July 3, 2014, and the plaintiff acquired the collateral security and the secured debt from our bank on September 29, 2014, and notified the debtor thereof thereafter.

C. After that, on the date of distribution of the auction of this case, the auction court prepared the distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) that distributes the amount of KRW 108,279,119 to the Defendant, who is the lessee of a small amount, in the first order of 188,649,120, the amount to be actually distributed as of March 25, 2015, and the Defendant, who is the lessee of a small amount, in the fourth order, who is the mortgagee, in the fourth order, as of the distribution of KRW 108,279,119. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against the whole amount of the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit within seven days thereafter.

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's Evidence 1 through 5, 7, 8, 11 through 14 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. Summary of the plaintiff's primary claim

Since the Defendant is the most lessee or a lessee who cannot be protected as a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act, the instant distribution schedule should be revised to distribute the amount of KRW 13 million distributed to the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

B. (1) The purpose of the Housing Lease Protection Act is to ensure the stability of the residential life of the people by prescribing special cases on the Civil Act with respect to residential buildings (Article 1). The purpose of the Housing Lease Protection Act is to ensure the stability of the residential life of the people (Article 3-2(2) and Article 3-2(2) of the aforementioned Act is to enable the lessee who has the requisite for opposing power and the fixed date on the lease agreement to be paid in preference to the junior right holder and other creditors at the time of auction or public sale is an exception to the general provisions of the Civil Act. In light of such legislative purpose and purpose of the system, even if the lessee was deemed to have obtained the opposing power as a housing lease after entering into a lease contract and completing a move-in report, the above provision is not applicable to those who occupy and use a house for the purpose of promoting their interest and the benefit of the obligor.

(2) Therefore, according to the following facts, the defendant leased the apartment of this case by the brokerage of a licensed real estate agent located in the original state, deposited the lease deposit into the lessor's side and paid the lease deposit several times. The settlement of the delinquent management fee at the time of the removal from the above apartment and deposited the rent into the lessor's side. The details of the management fee settled at the time of the removal can be acknowledged that the actual usage of electricity, water, etc. is stated. Thus, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant concluded the lease contract of this case with the falsity or did not actually reside in the above apartment.

However, each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 6 and 18 were included in the Housing Lease Protection Act and the overall purport of oral argument (including response to order to submit financial transaction information to the new bank of this court). The average sale price of the apartment was KRW 200 million as of the above apartment at the time of conclusion of the lease contract. As to the apartment, the maximum debt amount was KRW 7.2 million in the name of Korea Exchange Bank, and the maximum debt amount was KRW 240 million in the name of Korea Bank, each of the above apartment mortgages was over the sale price of the apartment. The defendant did not appear to have been 10 million in accordance with the above terms and conditions to protect the tenant's right to lease at the time of the conclusion of the lease contract at KRW 40,000,000,000,000 and KRW 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

(3) Therefore, among the instant dividend table, the dividend amount of KRW 13,00,00,00 received on the premise that the Defendant constitutes a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act shall be KRW 0, and the dividend amount of KRW 108,279, and KRW 119,00 shall be corrected respectively.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Seo-jin