2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On May 6, 2007, the Defendant leased 30,000,000 won of the lease deposit for the second floor of the building of the second floor in Gwangju Northern-gu D's 2nd floor.

B. On August 19, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the return of the said lease deposit with the Gwangju District Court 2014Kadan9170, and the said court rendered a judgment on August 19, 2014 that the Plaintiff succeeded to the lessor’s status under the said lease agreement through the network C and his heir pursuant to Article 3(3) of the former Housing Lease Protection Act, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. In a case where an executive title subject to an objection in a claim objection suit is a final and conclusive judgment, the reason should have arisen after the closure of pleadings in the relevant lawsuit. Moreover, even if the obligor was unaware of such circumstance without fault and was unable to assert it before the closure of pleadings, the circumstance that occurred earlier cannot be deemed as the ground for objection, even if the obligor was unable to assert it before the closure of pleadings.

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da12728 delivered on May 27, 2005).

As to the instant case, the Plaintiff alleged that he did not succeed to the status of the lessor, and that he did not have a duty to refund the lease deposit to the Defendant, but there is no assertion as to the situation that occurred after the closing of argument in the final judgment, the Plaintiff’

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.