1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff purchased No. 101 and No. 102 from Korea Lice Fund Co., Ltd. on Aug. 24, 2004 (hereinafter “instant shopping district”); and (b) the Plaintiff owned the instant shopping district on Jul. 7, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred its ownership to Floice Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sloice”) on July 7, 2008; and (c) the Defendant paid the sale price on Nov. 12, 2009 and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on Nov. 12, 2010 after completing the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on Nov. 12, 2010, it may be recognized as either there is no dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the items as set forth in subparagraphs A-1 and B-2.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not pay in full the sale price in the above voluntary auction procedure, and submitted an application for assumption of the obligation to substitute the payment of the sale balance on the condition that he takes over the obligation of the collateral security, and issued a certificate of completion of the sale payment from the court, but did not accept the above obligation, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the commercial building of this case, although

C, even after the ownership of the instant commercial building was transferred to FDC, paid a rent to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant occupied and used the instant commercial building and operated the instant commercial building, but did not pay a rent to the Plaintiff after the Defendant was sold the instant commercial building. Since the Defendant was not a bona fide owner, the Plaintiff could not demand the Plaintiff’s lessee to be rent, the Defendant occupied and used the instant commercial building, thereby gaining profits equivalent to rent by operating the instant commercial building jointly with C and the instant commercial building, and suffered losses from the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant, from November 12, 2009, did not pay a rent in advance according to lawful procedures, the order of five priority established for the instant commercial building from November 12, 2009 to the Plaintiff.