A. On June 15, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on KRW 40,000,000 on the instant officetel (hereinafter “instant officetel”) of the G Building H (hereinafter “instant instant instant lease agreement”) at the prime city, and paid KRW 30,000,000 on the same day and KRW 10,000,000 on the same day.

B. Around June 18, 2012, Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer in Defendant B’s name on the instant officetel on the grounds of sale as of May 24, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 4 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that Defendant B succeeded to the instant lease contract at the time of the purchase of the instant officetel from the Nonparty Company, or agreed to accept the obligation to return the lease deposit of the Nonparty Company, or that Defendant B is obligated to return the lease deposit amount to the Plaintiff, since Defendant B granted the authority to conclude the instant lease contract with respect to the instant officetel to the Nonparty Company, which had the Plaintiff enter into the instant lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

B. According to each of the statements in Gap, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 8 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5, the defendant Eul purchased from the non-party corporation the officetel I and J of the original city in addition to the officetel of this case. With respect to the above J, the defendant Eul completed the registration of transfer of ownership on March 16, 2012 on the ground of sale as of February 16, 2012. The above subparagraph I completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale as of April 25, 2012, and the above subparagraph Eul completed the registration of transfer of ownership on June 18, 2012. The defendant Eul called the instant officetel of this case through the defendant Eul, who is a fraud, and the above three officetel buildings under the subparagraph I and J of the above subparagraph.