1. The defendant shall receive KRW 420,000,000 from the plaintiff, and at the same time real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is as follows.

On December 3, 2015, the owner of the instant officetel at the auction procedure stated in paragraph (1) was awarded a successful bid and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and the defendant is the owner of the instant officetel at the auction procedure as follows.

A tenant who entered into each of the lease agreements described in the subsection is residing in this area until the closing date of the argument of this case.

B. On July 30, 2010, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C and the instant officetel from August 8, 2010 to August 7, 2012, under which the lease deposit amount is KRW 420 million, and paid KRW 420 million to C, and completed the move-in report on April 20, 201 upon delivery of the said officetel.

The senior mortgage established in the instant officetel at the time of the said move-in report was entirely cancelled.

C. C sells the instant officetel to D, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 3, 2012, and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with D on the same day and concluded the said officetel again.

The lease deposit paid under paragraph (1) shall be substituted for the payment of the lease deposit, and the term of lease shall be from April 3, 2012 to October 31, 2012.

The same content as the lease agreement was agreed. D.

On April 3, 2012, Non-Party National Bank established a mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 192 million against the instant officetel and the debtor D with respect to the instant officetel on April 3, 2012. On October 20, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a voluntary decision to commence the instant officetel as Seoul Central District Court E on October 20, 2014.

E. Prior cases between the Defendant and D, and the Defendant granting the succeeding execution clause to the Plaintiff.

After the expiration of the lease term under the lease agreement of this subsection, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D seeking the return of the lease deposit, as the lease deposit was not refunded from D.

The Seoul High Court, a prior appellate court, is the Seoul High Court.