A. On February 8, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C to lease the said building from the former owner Co., Ltd. to KRW 180,000,000 from February 8, 2019 to July 31, 2019, and thereafter, occupies and uses the said building from that time.

B. The instant building was sold to D on June 27, 2019, in sequence to the Defendant on September 26, 2019, and is currently the owner of the instant building.

C. The Plaintiff received KRW 100,000,000 out of the lease deposit from the former owner.

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

2. According to the above facts, since the lease contract for the building of this case is terminated at the expiration of the term, the defendant who succeeds to the status of the lessor pursuant to the Housing Lease Protection Act is obliged to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 80,000,000 to the plaintiff at the same time as the building of this case is delivered from the plaintiff.

Although the defendant alleged that he purchased the building in this case as the lessee of the building in this case, the transferee of the leased house under Article 3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act automatically succeeds to the status of the lessor unless there are special circumstances, and the succession to the status of the lessor is not different depending on whether the defendant was aware of the lease contract or not. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is legally meaningful

(3) The plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit, although the defendant alleged that he purchased the building of this case by deceiving the former owner, it is an issue between the former owner and cannot be asserted against the plaintiff on the ground of the above.