1. The defendant shall pay 31,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

1. Determination as to the cause of the claim: (a) on October 20, 2016, the Plaintiff paid a lease deposit with the lease deposit for the lease of three storys (hereinafter “instant real estate”) out of the three storys D-based D-based D-based building in Ansan-si, Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”); and (b) on October 17, 2016 through October 16, 2018, the Defendant purchased the instant real estate from C on January 6, 2017, and requested the Plaintiff to terminate the lease agreement on the ground of reconstruction of the instant real estate on April 2017, and the Plaintiff’s response thereto may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of pleadings as stated in the evidence No. 1 and No. 4.

On the other hand, on May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff was a person who received a refund of KRW 9,000,000 among KRW 40,000,000 from the Defendant.

According to these facts, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated between the Plaintiff and the Defendant who succeeded to the status of the lessor around April 2017, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid lease deposit amount of KRW 31,000,000 (=40,000,000 - KRW 9,000), barring any special circumstance.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The summary of the argument is that the defendant acquires the obligation to return the deposit under the condition that he/she acquires the real estate of this case from C. Thus, if the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant is cancelled according to the result of the claim for revocation of fraudulent act with the Gyeonggi Credit Guarantee Foundation

B. Even if the sales contract for the instant real estate between the Defendant and C is revoked as a fraudulent act, its revocation is merely effective between C and the Defendant, who is the obligee and the beneficiary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da47548, 47555, Jun. 12, 2014). Such circumstance alone alone alone leads to the Plaintiff who already succeeded to the status of the lessor.