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

A. On April 7, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) with respect to the lease deposit amount of KRW 26.5 million and the lease term of KRW 5 million (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the above 20-dong 1703, Dong 102, Dong 1703 (hereinafter “instant apartment”). Defendant C signed and sealed the instant lease agreement as the guarantor.

B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 26.5 million to the Defendant Company, and received the delivery of the instant apartment, and used it until the auction for the instant apartment was conducted.

C. On January 1, 2003 and January 1, 2004, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company agreed to increase the lease deposit in KRW 28,387,400 on two occasions, and the Plaintiff paid the increased lease deposit in addition to the Defendant Company.

On August 23, 2006, the Defendant Company sold the apartment of this case to Nonparty F in KRW 55 million, and only the remainder of KRW 26,612,600, which was deducted from the deposit for lease with the Plaintiff, was paid by F to Nonparty F.

E. Since then, the original Dong-dong Saemaul Bank applied for a voluntary auction on the instant real estate, and the voluntary auction was commenced on August 20, 2014 by the first branch of the Chuncheon District Court, G, and the decision of permission for sale was made on March 9, 2015.

F. The plaintiff did not receive dividends in the above auction procedure because he did not have the opposing power and preferential right to payment because he did not have the resident registration in the apartment of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, witness F's testimony, purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the apartment of this case was sold at a voluntary auction, and the defendant company became difficult to allow the plaintiff to use and benefit from the apartment of this case.

Accordingly, the plaintiff is the defendant company.