1. The Defendants are expected to receive approximately 33 square meters from the Plaintiff on the roof tower of the five-story building in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul (E and two parcels).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 7, 2010, the Plaintiff leased approximately 33 square meters (hereinafter “instant building and rooftop”) from the owner F of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (E, G, and H3 lots of land) as a rooftop tower in the five-story building (multi-family house) (hereinafter “the instant building and rooftop”). On May 7, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the move-in report by stating the address of the director at the instant office as “Seoul Eunpyeong-gu G” in accordance with the indication in the registry book and completed the move-in report on the same day as the date of closing the argument of the instant case, and subsequently, he continued to reside until the date of closing the argument.

B. On March 16, 2011, F completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 1920 million with respect to the building in this case to the Bank of Korea with the first priority over the maximum debt amount.

C. The Defendants purchased each 1/2 shares of the instant building during the voluntary auction procedure of Seoul Western District Court I, and acquired ownership by fully paying the price on April 24, 2014.

On March 24, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendants a notice to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall return deposit KRW 30 million by March 31, 2015, since the lease contract for the instant rooftop was terminated.” The Defendants received the said notice around that time.

[Based on Recognition] Class A’s Evidence Nos. 2 through 6 (including each number), Category B’s Evidence Nos. 1 and images

2. Determination of the parties' arguments

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion is a lessee with the opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the Defendants succeeded to the lessor’s status as the Defendants purchased and owned the instant building during the voluntary auction procedure. On March 24, 2015, the Defendants expressed to the Defendants the intent to terminate the lease agreement. As such, the Defendants were obliged to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff at the same time to the Plaintiff.

Shebly, the Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendants F.