1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased the D Apartment 1020, 1020-dong 103 (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) from C, and had obtained C’s consent, and completed a total remodeling project on the inside of the apartment, such as bereculed construction, floor construction, and kitchen toilets.

Since the defendant acquired the ownership by winning the apartment of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in the purport of the claim in accordance with the plaintiff's right to purchase attached things according to the above remodeling work.

2. According to the appraisal records and images of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, and appraiser E, the Plaintiff leased the instant apartment from C as of November 30, 2014 by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million, KRW 650,000,000,000 from December 30, 2014 to December 29, 2016; the Plaintiff entered into a contract for interior construction with respect to the instant apartment as of October 20, 2014, and thereafter, entered into a contract for interior construction with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant construction”); the Plaintiff’s existing value as of December 12, 2017 as of the result of the instant construction was 46,315,824, as of December 30, 2017.

However, in the event that real estate for auction purposes is sold at a successful bid, the right of lease registered after the senior mortgage is extinguished and the successful bidder can not be deemed to be included in the transferee of the leased house as stipulated in Article 3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da59306, Feb. 11, 200). In addition to the whole purport of pleading in the statement in the evidence No. 1, the right of lease cannot be asserted against the successful bidder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da59306, Oct. 15, 2014). The fact that the registration of the establishment of a neighboring apartment of this case was cancelled on the ground of voluntary auction on December 9, 2016 (hereinafter “instant auction”), and the defendant is the reason for sale by this auction.