2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On April 30, 2012 after the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff: (a) occupied and used the instant real estate on April 30, 2012; (b) acquired the opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act by concluding a move-in report with the instant real estate on May 1, 2012; and (c) on April 20, 2015, the ownership of the instant real estate was transferred to the Defendant; (b) accordingly, the Defendant, who acquired the obligation to return the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement, by acquiring the instant real estate, has the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,00,000; and (b) the Defendant transferred the ownership of the instant real estate to the Defendant under the exchange agreement between F and the Defendant, but thereafter, the Defendant rescinded the said exchange agreement with F, and thus, the instant real estate is no longer owned by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. Determination 1) In the event that the performance of an obligation under a sales contract has already been registered or delivered as a result of the performance of an obligation, the real right, if the contract, which is the cause of the act, has been rescinded, is naturally returned to the original state in which the contract had not been performed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 75Da1394, May 24, 197; 94Da18881, May 12, 1995). The ownership transferred to the buyer, as a matter of course, is naturally returned to the seller even when the contract has been rescinded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da2968, Jul. 27, 1982). The foregoing legal principle is identical when the registration or delivery has been completed due to the performance of an obligation under the exchange contract as a matter of course (see,