1. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff KRW 60,000,000.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

1. On May 29, 2014, the Plaintiff seeking the indication of the claim shall lease a multi-family house D located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant owned by the Defendant, with a lease deposit of KRW 60 million and a lease term of KRW 2 years. On September 11, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into the move-in report and occupied the said real estate and has been residing until now.

After that, although the procedure for compulsory auction on the above real estate was conducted by this court E, the plaintiff did not receive at all the amount of the lease deposit due to the reason that the plaintiff demanded a distribution after the completion date of the period to demand a distribution, and the defendant who is the owner was paid 216,051,914 won of surplus to the defendant who was the owner,

In the above auction procedure, the first priority mortgage established on January 14, 201 prior to the date of acquisition of opposing power of the plaintiff was extinguished together with the plaintiff's right of lease which cannot be asserted against the successful bidder due to extinction in the above auction procedure, and it became impossible to claim the lease against the successful bidder.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da32939 delivered on April 23, 1999, etc.). The above lease contract was terminated according to these circumstances.

Therefore, the defendant who is still in a lessor's position is still seeking the payment of the above lease deposit amounting to 60 million won and damages for delay.

2. Judgment by public notice on the basis of recognition (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. The Plaintiff is also seeking damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment with respect to KRW 60,000,000.

However, even if the defendant, who is the lessor, does not exercise the right of defense of simultaneous performance, even if the object of lease in simultaneous performance is not delivered, the existence of the right of defense itself has the effect to prevent the occurrence of delay liability of the obligation to return the deposit (the theory of existence). The date of closing of argument in this case.