Whether a lessee is a small lessee who has not submitted evidentiary documents, such as payment of rent deposit;

Even for small-sum lessee, there is no room to protect him/her if he/she is unable to trust the authenticity of the lease in consideration of the circumstances before and after the lease.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 7, 2004, Defendant ○○ Agricultural Cooperative concluded a mortgage agreement of KRW 97,500,000 with respect to the attached real estate (hereinafter “instant housing”) with ○○ Housing Co., Ltd., and completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the same day.

B. The above defendant applied for an auction on Nov. 25, 2005, when ○○ Housing Co., Ltd. did not repay the secured debt, and the auction procedure was commenced on Nov. 25, 2005 by the Busan District Court Branch 2005ta,0000, and the housing of this case was awarded to Kim○ on Sept. 15, 2006.

C. On the date of distribution implemented on November 2, 2006, the auction court distributed KRW 162,256 out of KRW 94,018,378, to ○○○○○-si, a person holding the first priority of delivery, and distributed KRW 88,846,950 to Defendant ○○-si, a person holding the second priority of distribution, the remaining KRW 5,008,868. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the dividend amount as excluded from the dividend.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On October 20, 2005, the Plaintiff, a person having a right to lease the instant house, resided in KRW 25,00,000 and completed the move-in report on October 24, 200 of the same month while residing in KRW 25,00,00 of the lease deposit from Kim △△△, a person having a right to lease the instant house. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants’ dividend amount should be revised as stated in

B. Determination

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s allegation that the Plaintiff was 1,00,000 won for the above 20 △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and was 20,000 won for the above 20 △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and was 1,00,00 won for the above 20 △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and was 1,00,000 won for the above 20 △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, which was 20, and was 1,000,000 won for the above 20 △△△△△△△△, the evidence.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.