1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 1, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant C, E, and D (hereinafter “Defendant C, etc.”) by setting the deposit amount of KRW 136,00,000, and the lease period from July 7, 2017 to February 28, 2020 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement.” The Plaintiff is residing in the instant apartment after the Plaintiff paid the entire deposit to Defendant C, etc., and completed the move-in report on July 6, 2017.

B. On March 19, 2019, Defendant C, etc. sold the instant apartment to Defendant B, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant apartment to Defendant B as was received on March 22, 2019 from the Changwon District Court Jinwon District Court, Jinju Branch Branch, Seoul District Court, etc.

(hereinafter “this case’s transfer registration”). 【No ground for recognition’ exists, Gap’s 1 through 7 evidence, Eul’s 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's cause of claim

A. For the following reasons, Defendant C, etc. is still in a lessor status under the instant lease agreement, and thus, Defendant C, etc. is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff part of the deposit under the instant lease agreement the amount of KRW 36 million and damages for delay.

1) After Defendant C, etc. notified the Plaintiff of the fact of selling the instant apartment, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the succession to the lessor’s status within a reasonable period of time. (2) Defendant C, etc. owned and leased apartment buildings in the Jinju area, and the apartment price did not reach the deposit due to the aggravation of the real estate market. As such, Defendant B, etc. sold the apartment collectively to the Plaintiff, etc. for the purpose of evading the obligation to refund the deposit amount.

This is null and void in accordance with Article 103 of the Civil Code as a juristic act whose content is contrary to good morals and other social order.

B. As stated in the above 2, the apartment sales contract of this case is concluded.