1. The Defendant takeover intervenor’s KRW 30,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 5, 2016 to March 21, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. The grounds for requesting the indication of the claim and the written application for participation in takeover of the lawsuit;

2. Judgment made on the confession of applicable provisions of Acts to the intervenor taking over by the defendant (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. Where a rental house which has an opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act is transferred to the defendant, the transferee succeeds to all the rights and obligations under the lease contract of the lessor in combination with the ownership of the house, and as a result, the transferee is exempted from the obligation to return the deposit for lease, and the transferor is exempted from the obligation to return the deposit for lease to the lessee by withdrawing from the lease relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Da49523, Jan. 17, 2013): Provided, That where the lessee does not want the succession to the status of the lessor, it may escape from the detention of the lease relationship succeeded by filing an objection within a reasonable period from the time the lessee becomes aware of the transfer of the rental house, and in such a case, the transferor’s obligation to return the deposit to the lessee does not extinguish (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da64615, Sept. 4, 2002).

Therefore, since the defendant exempted the obligation to return the lease deposit of this case, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant cannot be accepted.

(However, considering the progress of the lawsuit in this case, the costs of lawsuit between two persons shall be borne by the defendant)