1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is the first floor of the building indicated in the attached list from the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2012, the Plaintiff leased from C the part (c) of the ship (hereinafter “the instant loan”) that connects each point of Section 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) from C, in sequence, to Section 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Defendant purchased the instant building from C on September 28, 2016 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 9, 2016.

C. On May 12, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the move-in report on the instant building, and has been residing in the instant loan.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap Nos. 1, 2 (including branch numbers in case of additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), 3, Eul No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant, the new owner, succeeded to the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the lease deposit due to the change in ownership of the instant loan.

Since the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement following the change of ownership, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million under the instant lease agreement.

B. (1) The fact that a lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is terminated is without dispute between the parties, and the plaintiff acquired opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the defendant who acquired the building of this case thereafter is deemed to succeed to the status of lessor of the building of this case pursuant to Article 3(4) of the Housing Lease Protection Act. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return the

(2) If the Defendant’s amount of the lease deposit of the loan of this case returned to the Plaintiff added the purport of the entire pleadings to the health account, Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 3-1, and Eul evidence 3-2, and some testimony of the witness witness D at the trial, the Plaintiff and C (or the wife D who represented by Eul) leased the instant loan of this case of KRW 8 million on or around March 2012, but increased the amount by KRW 10 million on or around October 2014, and around around 2015.