2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

A. The Defendant newly constructed the real estate listed in the separate sheet with C, which had been engaged in construction-related affairs since several years ago, and on August 31, 201, registration of ownership preservation was made in C with regard to the said real estate.

B. The Plaintiff was in de facto marital relationship with the Defendant, and from the end of August 201, from among the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the Plaintiff resided with the Defendant in the instant house from around 401 (hereinafter “instant house”) and retired from the Defendant on August 2013, and the Defendant was residing in the instant house until now.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 14 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On June 13, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C on the instant housing with the term of KRW 150 million and the term of lease from August 16, 2011 to August 15, 2013, and paid KRW 150 million to C.

B. On June 10, 2013, the Plaintiff notified C of his/her intention not to renew the said lease agreement and terminated the said lease agreement upon expiration of the period.

C. Therefore, C is obligated to refund the lease deposit to the Plaintiff KRW 150 million.

However, since the defendant continued to reside in the house of this case and did not leave, the plaintiff seeks to transfer the house of this case against the defendant by subrogation of C.

3. We examine whether the Plaintiff has the claim to return the lease deposit against C.

First, with respect to whether the Plaintiff and C entered into a lease agreement as alleged by the Plaintiff with respect to the instant housing, there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the lease agreement, and the evidence Nos. 1 cannot be used as evidence, and it is not sufficient to recognize the authenticity of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Next, the lease contract on the housing of this case is expired.