1. The defendant shall receive KRW 92,400,000 from the plaintiff, and at the same time, shall be the building stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Since around 2010, C was a rental business operator who constructed and leased a F apartment, a public construction rental house, in Busan-gun E with D’s support, and on November 2, 2010, leased F apartment G (the apartment in this case) to the Defendant at KRW 58 million (the rent KRW 150,000 per month).

(The above lease deposit was increased by KRW 88 million on September 16, 2013, and KRW 90,240,000 on February 23, 2016). (b)

The Defendant completed the move-in report on the instant apartment on September 6, 2012. The Defendant resided in the instant apartment from August 11, 2015 to October 30, 2016, and from November 24, 2016 to January 2018, I respectively. The Defendant filed an application for the move-in conversion on the instant apartment on February 28, 2017, but C notified the Defendant of the termination of the lease along with the fact that the instant apartment was disqualified for parcelling-out on the ground that “illegal electric rental and breach of duty of residence” was “illegally qualified for parcelling-out.”

C. On January 8, 2018, C approved the conversion of the F apartment to the sale of the said F apartment by the captain-head of the Gun, and on January 11, 2018, C sent a final non-compliant household certificate demanding the eviction to the disqualified generation, including the Defendant.

On March 2, 2018, the registration of ownership transfer was completed to J Co., Ltd. on the apartment of this case, and on March 8, 2018, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of sale to the Plaintiff.

E. Meanwhile, the Defendant brought a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, on the other hand, seeking compensation for damages incurred by failure to comply with the above agreement under the premise that C entered into an agreement to give B a sub-lease to himself/herself even if sub-lease, on the premise that he/she is entitled to conversion for sale in lots. However, on the grounds that there is no evidence to deem that the primary claim is eligible to be converted for sale in lots, the Defendant rejected the conjunctive claim on the ground that there is no such agreement.

(In Busan District Court Decision 2018Gadan206440 decided January 21, 2020).