2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

A. On January 29, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with a limited liability company of the agricultural company, which provides that deposit money for KRW 60 million for the housing located in Chungcheongnam-si (hereinafter “instant housing”) and the term of lease shall be from January 29, 201 to 12 months (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). At the time of the Plaintiff’s occurrence, the Plaintiff agreed to substitute for the payment of deposit money for the amount of KRW 60,000,000,000,000,000, which was held in relation to the Middle-si, for the payment of deposit for lease.

B. On July 16, 2012, C was divided into E or F, and the site on which the instant housing was located was divided into “Y in Chungcheongnam-si,” and the road name address was implemented thereafter, changed to “H in Chungcheong-si,” upon the implementation of the road name address.

C. On January 31, 201, the Plaintiff made a move-in report to H in Chungcheongnam-si. D.

On December 29, 2014, the Defendant (Withdrawal) purchased the instant house from Jungwon, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant on February 6, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the Defendant sold the instant house to the Defendant Intervenor on December 30, 2015, and on January 21, 2016, the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Intervenor acquiring the instant house was completed.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 1 or 7, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The summary of the parties’ assertion 1) The Plaintiff already acquired the status of a lessee with opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act with respect to the instant housing before the Defendant (Withdrawal) and the Defendant Intervenor acquired the ownership of the instant housing. Therefore, the Defendant Intervenor, the transferee of the instant housing, is obligated to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff simultaneously with the delivery of the instant housing from the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant Intervenor’s lease agreement of this case was concluded in order to secure the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the amount of investment to the Plaintiff.