beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part pertaining to the participation of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is the Intervenor.
Reasons
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleading in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, 5, 8, 9, 11 to 13 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply):
On April 20, 2005, the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C 99.2 square meters and the cement brick gate and pent roof on its ground (hereinafter “instant site and building”) purchased on April 20, 205 and completed the registration of ownership transfer by purchasing at 1/2 shares of D and E, but sold it to F on May 27, 2014 and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and F sold it to G on July 10, 2014 and completed the registration of ownership transfer.
B. On October 2, 2015, the National Bank of Korea applied for a voluntary auction of real estate at H of this Court as to the instant site and building. The Defendant purchased this in the auction procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 24, 2017.
C. The Plaintiff completed the move-in report on June 10, 2005 with respect to the instant building, as the husband and wife of D and E, but did not demand a distribution from the above auction procedure as the lessee, etc.
2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim
A. On July 6, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with F on KRW 80 million for the instant building. On September 10, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with G on a deposit of KRW 100 million for the instant building, and filed a claim against the Defendant, who acquired the said building and succeeded to the status of the lessor, by asserting that it is a lessee who actually resides after completing resident registration as to the said building.
B. We examine whether the Plaintiff is a lessee with opposing power, the following circumstances, i.e., the real estate lease agreement (Evidence No. 4-1) signed between the Plaintiff and F, which was concluded on July 6, 2014 between the Plaintiff and F, may be acknowledged if the Plaintiff added to the above evidence No. 4 and the evidence No. 1-7.