Since the plaintiff is judged as the most lessee in various circumstances, it is excluded from dividend payment.

In full view of the facts such as the details of lease, the plaintiff is judged as the most lessee.

Article 741 of the Civil Act

2015 grouped 23206 (principal lawsuit) Any objection to the distribution

2015dan5372187 (Counterclaim) Undue profit

AA

Korea

June 24, 2016

July 15, 2016

1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) pays KRW 0,000,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim on the principal lawsuit is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) by aggregating the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Main Action: Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on October 00, 000 with respect to the distribution procedure case of real estate rental auction at Seoul Central District Court Decision 000,000,000 won, the amount of dividends of KRW 00,000 to the defendant (with respect to jurisdiction: 00,000,000,000,000 for the defendant (with respect to the counterclaim; hereinafter referred to as the "defendant"), shall be KRW 00,00,000 for the small amount of rent deposit (No. 003) against the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff"), the amount of dividends of KRW 0,000,000 for the small amount of rent deposit (No. 002) against the plaintiff, the amount of dividends of KRW 0,000,000 for the plaintiff (No. 002) shall be corrected to KRW 00,000,000 each.

Counterclaim: This provision shall also apply to the Disposition of Paragraph (1).

1. Basic facts

A. Seoul 00-dong 00-0 and one parcel, 000, 0001, 002, and 003 (hereinafter referred to as "OOOOO" in this context), all of which were owned by a single person in a commercial theory. On October 00, 000, a decision to commence voluntary auction was rendered with the application for auction by the bank 00 bank Co., Ltd., the mortgagee-mortgage 000,000, with the Seoul Central District Court 000,000.

B. In the above voluntary auction procedure, the Plaintiff asserted that the lessee of small amount set forth in subparagraphs 002 and 003, respectively, claimed for the lease deposit of KRW 00 million, and filed a report on the right and demand for distribution. On October 00, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for delivery during the above voluntary auction procedure.

C. In the above voluntary auction procedure, a distribution schedule was prepared regarding the amount to be distributed through the sale of all the above real estate.

D. The Plaintiff made a statement of demurrer against the Defendant on the date of distribution, and filed the instant principal lawsuit against the Defendant.

[Grounds for Recognition] No dispute

2. The abstract and key issues of the parties' arguments;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The auction court paid 0,00,000 won after deducting the unpaid rent from the respective lease deposit for the Plaintiff’s Nos. 002 and 003. However, since the Plaintiff paid all the rent, the amount equivalent to the total amount of each lease deposit should be distributed to the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The plaintiff does not have a security deposit to be distributed as the most lessee, and even if it is true tenant, the decision of the distribution court that deducts the unpaid rent from it is justifiable.

C. Issues

The issues of this case are as follows: first, whether the plaintiff is the most lessee, second, whether the plaintiff is the rent for the plaintiff, and first, if it is deemed the most lessee in the issue, the second issue needs to be judged.

3. Judgment on the first issue

A. Conclusion of a lease agreement by the Plaintiff

According to the statements in Gap evidence 5-1 through 4, the plaintiff leased Nos. 002 and No. 0003 respectively from the work-level 000,000,000, respectively, and the rent of KRW 00,000,000 for each month. The plaintiff leased Nos. 006 and 007 of the same building fromYY on the same day. The lease deposit is KRW 00,000 for each month, and KRW 006 for each month rent is KRW 00,000,000 for each year.

B. Whether the Plaintiff’s lease agreement constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy

In full view of the following circumstances, each lease agreement regarding No. 0002 and No. 0003 between the Plaintiff and the party at the same time constitutes a false conspiracy. The Plaintiff’s evidence related thereto is difficult to believe or insufficient to reverse the above facts, and there is no other counter-proof.

1) According to the statement 1 and 2 of the evidence No. 9-2, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s work at a school seems to have been well known from the past, and the Plaintiff does not raise any objection to the relationship itself with the work at a school. Meanwhile, the relationship between YY and the work at a school that has leased No. 006 and 007 is not any example to the Plaintiff. In other words, the two lease agreements between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the work at a school have the same form and content, excluding the monthly rent, and in particular, the lessor’s telephone number is deemed to have been prepared by one person who is in fact identical with the “00-000-00000” (the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff was the spouse of a person whose work at a school was referred to as the “YY” but it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff was requested to lease management by the YY.).

2) On October 00, 2013, the Plaintiff completed its business registration with the trade name "000 (00)00." The location of the Plaintiff reported all the above four leased buildings at the location of the location, and obtained a fixed date in the above four lease agreements. However, the business registration was made at the location of Nos. 002 and 003, which is the dispute building of this case, as the Plaintiff registered its business on the same day as the Plaintiff registered its business. On the same day, the three business registrations were made at the location of Nos. 006 and 007, which is leased to the Plaintiff. The three business registrations were conducted on behalf of the Plaintiff at a single tax accounting office (including evidence No. 8-1, 2, and 3). While it may be deemed that both the lessor and the YY was conducted business registration in duplicate of the Plaintiff at a single tax accounting office, it is difficult to see that both the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff were in a relationship with the YY, as the Plaintiff and the YY.

3) The grounds for the Plaintiff’s payment of rent deposit and monthly rent are unclear. The Plaintiff paid rent deposit of KRW 0 million at the time of a contract to a party-level commercialization, KRW 0 million on October 0, 2013, KRW 00 million on October 0, 2013, and KRW 00 million on October 00, 2013, and KRW 00,000,000,000. The Plaintiff asserted that most of the rent was paid in cash, and that most of the rent was paid in cash, and did not present objective materials to prove the specific details. In this regard, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff paid the rent deposit of KRW 3,00,00 to the party-level commercialization, KRW 6, KRW 8, and KRW 1, and KRW 2 of the evidence No. 9-1 (statement of the party-level commercialization) to the party-level commercialization. Meanwhile, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff paid the rent deposit of KRW 30,000,00.

4) The Plaintiff’s trade name is identical to the Plaintiff’s trade name, but the Plaintiff could easily prove the existence of such evidence. Rather, the tax base of value-added tax reported by the Plaintiff is only KRW 00,000 for a period of 00 to 000,000 (Evidence 19) and KRW 00,000 for a period of 0 to 000 to 000 (Evidence 19). Furthermore, considering the details of purchase sales during the 2000 period, the purchase tax invoice except monthly rent and management expenses was received from the 0000,000, all of which were excluding monthly rent and management expenses, and the said “stock company” is merely the same as those of the Plaintiff’s trade name, and most of the executives, including V, who were listed as the representative director, were engaged or engaged in the business at the same time as the Plaintiff’s trade name, and the Plaintiff appears to be changed from the 13th to the 20th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s trade name and the Plaintiff’s business.

"5) The plaintiff has filed a lien report in the distribution procedure. At this time, the photograph of the interior works submitted to the court shows a plaque stating the plaintiff's trade name, not "0000, which is the plaintiff's trade name," but "00,000." The above "00" is a trade name used several times in the past (No. 9-2, No. 10, No. 11) (No. 10, No. 11) (No. 9-2, No. 10, No. 11) (No. 9-2, No. 10, No. 11) (No. 9-2, No.

According to the above review, each lease agreement between the plaintiff and the company at issue with respect to No. 002 and the company at issue with respect to No. 0003 is null and void as a conspiracy and void. DD and 00 bank, the first priority of the defendant, received the total amount of credit, while the defendant did not receive the distribution of most of the amount of credit 0,000,000 won, and since there is no creditor with the same priority, the total amount of KRW 0,000,000 distributed to the plaintiff should be paid to the defendant in full, and there is no ground to rectify the reduction of the defendant's dividend amount for the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff must return the above KRW 0,000 to the defendant without any legal ground. Therefore, all of the principal claim and counterclaims are with merit, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed as without merit, and the defendant's counterclaim is justified.

shall be used.