1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. In full view of the reasoning of the argument as to the grounds for the claim (i.e., Gap evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the owner of the three floors (Dang-dong No. 301), among the three multi-family houses of Pyeongtaek-si No. Dadong No. 301) on March 18, 2014 (hereinafter “instant building”), and entered into the lease contract with the owner of D and deposit KRW 60 million on March 18, 2014 and the term of contract from March 18, 2014 to December 19, 2014, and completed the resident registration transfer report with the fixed date No. 183 on March 19, 2014; the Defendant, who acquired ownership by completing the provisional registration of the instant building on June 15, 2015, filed a lawsuit seeking the return of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff on June 3, 2015.

Dor, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is only a kind of tenant, not a tenant under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

In other words, the plaintiff is the creditor of the construction cost against the non-party D and F, and D et al. merely prepared a lease contract on the building of this case in form for the repayment of the above monetary claim.

(2) If the Plaintiff and D et al.’s above lease agreement were invalid due to false conspiracy, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above lease agreement was invalid due to false conspiracy, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above lease agreement was invalid due to false conspiracy, and the Plaintiff’s statement of Nos. 3 through No. 14, and Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number), and the witness F and G’s testimony were added to the entire purport of the pleading, the Plaintiff’s existing assertion against D and F.