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

A. On October 14, 2010, the Plaintiff leased each of the instant building Nos. 301 and 302 worth KRW 200,000,000,000, the lease deposit amount of KRW 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

B. Around March 2012, the Plaintiff and Dup Star terminated each of the above lease agreements. On March 13, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred the instant building Nos. 113, 301, and 302 to Dup Star and was returned KRW 140 million out of the lease deposit.

C. As the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 140 million out of the lease deposit and the remainder of KRW 100,000,000,000, the Plaintiff won the remainder. On August 17, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Dud Star seeking the refund of the remainder KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

On the other hand, on July 11, 2011, the Defendant registered the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on the instant building 113, 301, and 302, but completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 1, 2012.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through Gap's evidence 3 (including branch numbers, if any), the purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment asserted that the Defendant was liable to pay KRW 100 million remaining lease deposit to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff acquired the instant building from drums during the process of the lawsuit claiming the return of the said lease deposit.

However, as seen earlier, the Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant building after the termination of the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and thus, did not have any obligation to refund the lease deposit to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.