1. The defendant shall deliver real estate stated in the attached list from the plaintiff to the plaintiff at the same time, and at the same time, KRW 60,000,000 to the plaintiff.

1. On November 3, 2015, the Plaintiff leased the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) from Nonparty C for a residential purpose, respectively, with the lease deposit of KRW 60,000,000, and the lease term of KRW 30,000, from November 30, 2015 to November 30, 2017.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 60,00,000 to C, and completed the move-in report on the instant building on April 5, 2016, and obtained the fixed date on the lease contract, and has resided in the instant building as a resident registration until now.

C concluded a real estate security trust contract with the defendant as to the building of this case and completed the registration procedure on May 4, 2016.

On October 18, 2019, after the expiration of the lease term of the instant building, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the return of the lease deposit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, Eul 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination on the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was terminated upon the lapse of November 30, 2017, and the expiration of the period.

On the other hand, even if the lease is terminated due to the expiration of the term of lease in the lease of a house with opposing power, the lessee is deemed to continue to exist until the deposit is returned pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, and in cases where real estate which is the object of lease is transferred to the assignee pursuant to Article 3(4) of the same Act, the status as the lessor at the time of termination of the lease is naturally succeeded to (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da64615, Sept. 4, 2002). Thus, the defendant is a person who succeeds to the status as the lessor of the building of this case as to the building of this case by C and is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 60,000,000, at the

B. The defendant's assertion is not the lessor of the building of this case, but the ownership of this case.