1. The defendant received on August 14, 1995 from the Seoul Southern District Court as to the real estate stated in the attached list from the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 19, 2015, the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant building that completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 21, 2015 by acquiring the ownership of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) in the public sale procedure.

B. The deceased B (the deceased on April 7, 2008, hereinafter “the deceased”) completed the registration of establishment of chonsegwon (hereinafter “registration of chonsegwon”) with respect to the instant building as the Seoul Southern District Court’s receipt of August 14, 1995 under the Act No. 69011 on April 14, 1995, stating “40 million won for deposit money, the duration of the right to lease on a deposit basis until April 28, 1997, the scope of which is 18.87m2, southwest-west, west-west, of the instant building,” due to the contract signed on April 10, 1995.

C. On July 10, 2019, the Defendant completed additional registration on July 10, 2019 with respect to the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis of the instant lease on a deposit basis.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 4, Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. Of the Plaintiff’s assertion, subparagraph C (hereinafter “instant subparagraph C”) of the instant building is a place where lessee D entered into a lease agreement on May 31, 1995 and resided from June 6, 1995, and the Deceased was a person having a false right to lease on a deposit basis with E, who is the former owner of the instant building. Thus, the registration of the instant lease on a deposit basis is a registration of invalidation of the right to lease on a deposit basis.

Even if the deceased is not a false person having a right of lease on a deposit basis, D’s commencement of residence from June 6, 1995, and thus, the deceased lost possession of C. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the deceased’s right to return the deposit for lease on a deposit basis against E was expired from that time. As such, the right to return the deposit for lease on a deposit basis against E or the plaintiff was extinguished by prescription.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of chonsegwon of this case.

B. The intent of the Defendant’s argument is to secure the preferential repayment of the deposit money, and E or the Plaintiff.