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

A. On August 25, 1993, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the lease of the instant real estate between D and D, who was the owner of the restaurant building in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu (a cafeteria and the 52m2m2, an extract sap, hereinafter “instant real estate”), with the deposit amount of KRW 25 million for the instant real estate, and the contract period from August 25, 1993 to August 25, 1995 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and received the said deposit after paying the deposit.

B. On February 4, 1994, the Plaintiff made a move-in report on the real estate of this case on the resident registration, and obtained a fixed date in the above lease contract on April 28, 1994, and had been residing there until now since the closure of a restaurant for several years.

C. On April 22, 200, upon the application of E, a creditor of D, the voluntary auction procedure for the instant real estate was initiated, and the Defendant awarded the instant real estate in the above auction procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 19, 201.

The plaintiff applied for a demand for distribution in the above auction procedure, but did not have been distributed.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff completed the delivery and resident registration of the instant real estate after the instant lease agreement. Therefore, the instant lease agreement has opposing power against the Defendant, who is the transferee of the instant real estate, pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Housing Lease Protection Act. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is obligated to return the said deposit amount of KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff expressed his intention to refuse or terminate the instant lease by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint on the Defendant. 2) As to this, the Defendant did not claim that the instant lease agreement is not a house, and thus, the Housing Lease Protection Act does not apply.

B. The Housing Lease Protection Act applies to judgment 1.