2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. In order to secure the right to refund deposit money of the lease contract (hereinafter “the lease contract of this case”) with respect to the building of this case without the substance of the right to lease on a deposit basis, the Defendant, based on the false indication of agreement, only written out only the external form of the right to lease on a deposit basis, and the Plaintiff was also aware of such circumstances.

Therefore, the Defendant may set up against the Plaintiff on the ground of the claim deduction claim, such as rent and management fee unpaid by C. Since the above claim exceeds KRW 200 million, around March 2018, which was prior to the delivery of the instant seizure and assignment order, it is difficult for the Defendant to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim for the entire amount of the instant claim.

As to this, the plaintiff asserts that even if the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon of this case was made by false conspiracy, the plaintiff constitutes a bona fide third person under Article 108 (2) of the Civil Code, who did not know such circumstance.

B. In light of the fact that the lease on a deposit basis has both the available real right and the secured right nature, the registration of the lease on a deposit basis which is completed in the name of the lessee according to the agreement between the lessor and the lessee is valid unless there are special circumstances.

Therefore, even if the mortgagee of chonsegwon, who was established a mortgage on the right to lease on the basis of the above purpose, was aware of such circumstance, the mortgagee should be deemed to have established a mortgage on the right to lease on the basis of a valid right to lease on the basis of security for the right to lease on the deposit. In such a case, the mortgagee of chonsegwon