1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 8, 2008, when the Plaintiff owned the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), on May 8, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a right to lease on a deposit basis of KRW 100,000,000 as stated in the purport of the claim in C Co., Ltd.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant chonsegwon”). B.

Then, on October 29, 2009, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) in KRW 100,000,000, and D acquired the right to lease on a deposit basis by transfer of C Co., Ltd. to secure the right to refund the lease deposit against the Plaintiff, and completed the supplementary registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis on April 7, 2010.

In addition, on July 19, 2012, E’s registration of leasehold right, provisional seizure of right to lease on a deposit basis, F’s registration of provisional seizure of right to lease on a deposit basis on December 13, 2012, F’s registration of provisional seizure of right to lease on a deposit basis, on February 13, 2013, the Industrial Bank of Korea’s registration of provisional seizure of right to lease on a deposit basis, on February 19, 2013, and on October 15, 2013, H’s registration of seizure of right to lease on a deposit basis was entered.

C. In that situation, the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate to I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 27, 2013.

Then, the instant chonsegwon was sold to the Defendant on January 22, 2014 in the special cash making procedure based on the seizure of G Co., Ltd., and the registration of the additional registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis was completed on October 6, 2014. At the same time, the registration of the provisional registration of E, F, Industrial Bank of Korea, G Co., Ltd. and H was revoked.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On April 27, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the right to lease on a deposit basis was terminated between D and D, and that the right to lease on a deposit basis (right to lease on a deposit basis) remains.

Thus, the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case has been transferred to the defendant.