1. Case Overview

After completing the registration of a leasehold right, the client applied for a compulsory auction of the real estate, using the claim for the return of the lease deposit as the preserved right. Subsequently, the client successfully won the bid for the building during the auction process and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership.

2. Unique Aspects of the Case

The most important part of this case was the substance of the lease agreement claimed by the occupant. The former owner and the occupant had a certain relationship, and they attempted to exercise rights as a small-sum lessee by entering into a lease agreement immediately before the point when an auction was expected, subsequently transferring their resident registration and obtaining a fixed date. However, taking various circumstances into account, there were clear indications that it was difficult to view this as a normal tenancy. A high-value leasehold registration had already been established, and the structure relative to the property value was also in a state that was difficult to understand through common sense. Furthermore, the process of concluding the contract was far from general transaction forms. Supreme Court precedents also rule that a contract that only maintains the appearance of a lease without the actual intent to use or profit from the property constitutes a collusive false expression and is void. This matter was a case that precisely conformed to such legal principles.

3. Legal Strategy & Assistance

The key to this case was not simply claiming, "I won the bid, so please leave," but persuasively organizing the argument that the very basis of the occupancy was fraudulent. To achieve this, the following points were organically linked and structured into a single coherent narrative:

• The progress of the auction proceedings
• The relationship between the leasehold registration and dividend distribution 
• The timing of the lease agreement in question
• The relationship between the parties involved
• The irrationality of the financial structure

 Furthermore, we emphasized the urgency of the preliminary injunction by specifically explaining why a conservatory measure was necessary before the main lawsuit and highlighting that enforcement would become practically impossible if possession were transferred.

4. Outcome of Assistance

The court accepted the creditor's claims and granted the preliminary injunction prohibiting the transfer of possession. Due to this decision, the occupant is no longer able to transfer possession to a third party, and the client has stably secured the possibility of enforcement for future delivery procedures. It is not uncommon for disputes regarding occupancy issues to continue even after winning an auction bid. Particularly in cases where a lease agreement concluded right before an auction is at issue, the work of closely examining the substance of the contract is essential. This case was an example that confirmed that point once again.