1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

A. On September 23, 2012, the Plaintiff leased 201 units of multi-family housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) among multi-family housing on the five-story and the five-story plot of land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant housing”) from the Defendant on the basis of the period from September 25, 2012 to September 25, 2014, the deposit amount of KRW 25 million, and the rent of KRW 200,000 per month.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Plaintiff, on September 25, 2012, received the payment of the deposit in full and delivered the instant house, and thereafter, took the move-in report on September 27, 2012 to the domicile of the instant house, and resided in the instant house.

C. On September 12, 2013, the Defendant sold to D the entire multi-family house including the instant house and its site, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in D on the same day.

The Dong-gu Daejeon Saemaul Depository, a creditor and a mortgagee of D, filed an application for voluntary auction on the above multi-family house and its site on the ground that D did not repay its loan obligations, and on June 20, 2014, the decision to commence voluntary auction was made and the entry registration was completed on the same day.

Daejeon District Court E. E.

F is awarded the above multi-family house and its land in the above voluntary auction procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 4, 2015 and on the same day.

The Plaintiff delivered the instant house to F on April 15, 2015 upon F’s request, but did not take measures, such as demand for distribution, during the said voluntary auction procedure, and did not receive dividends.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1-2, Eul evidence No. 1-2, and fact-finding with respect to the Daejeon Head of Daejeon Head of the Dong, the purport of the whole pleadings and the plaintiff's assertion of the judgment of this case were implicitly renewed even after the expiration of the contract, and the lease contract of this case was terminated after the plaintiff delivered the house of this case to F on April 15, 2015, and the defendant transferred the ownership of this case to D.

Even if the lease deposit is exempted from the obligation to return the lease deposit.