A. The building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant house”) was owned by Nonparty C. On October 22, 2012, the Defendant leased the instant house from Nonparty C with an agreement on the lease deposit of KRW 25,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 500,000, and the lease term of KRW 23 years from October 23, 2012 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The Defendant paid C the above lease deposit amount of KRW 25,00,000,000, and the monthly rent of KRW 2,000,000 for four months was paid, and the monthly rent was not paid for February 23, 2013, and the move-in report on the instant house was completed.

C. On September 23, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased the instant house from C in KRW 165,00,000, and made a registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant house on October 1 of the same year.

Meanwhile, while the Plaintiff and C agreed to succeed to the status of the lessor against the Defendant from C, the Defendant did not consent to the Plaintiff’s succession to the status of the lessor, and notified C of the repayment of the lease deposit on June 17, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of a claim may be based solely on a contract between a lessor and a new owner of a leased object to transfer the status of a lessor. However, if the lessee does not wish, he/she may not compel the lessee to succeed to the status of the leased object, and the lessee may be exempted from the restraint of the lease relationship succeeded by raising an objection against the succession to the status of the lessor. In such cases, the lease relationship between the lessor and the lessee remains in force, and the lessor still assumes the duty to return the lease deposit to the lessee.

On the other hand, if the lessee raises an objection to the succession to the status of the lessor, the lessee is against the transferee of the leased house.