1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 25, 2001, 201, Dobcheon-si E and its ground reinforced concrete structure slives (n) were purchased, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 28, 2001.

B. On March 16, 2006, the Plaintiff reported the correction of business registration of the name “F” with respect to the instant building in the name of ASEAN. At the time, the Plaintiff attached a lease agreement with the lessor “D, lessee C, lease term from March 15, 2006 to March 15, 2008, lease deposit amount of KRW 60,000,000, and KRW 600,000,000 from March 15, 2008.”

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant purchased the instant building from D on October 18, 2014 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 21, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that on March 15, 2006, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D and the building of this case at KRW 60,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 600,000, and paid the full amount of the lease deposit to D while operating the house. Since the defendant succeeded to the status of D by acquiring the ownership of the building of this case, the defendant asserts that the above lease deposit is to be refunded to the plaintiff.

B. 1) In order for a lessee to recover the lease deposit against a lessor or his/her successor after the termination of the lease agreement, the burden of proving that the lease deposit under the lease agreement was actually paid should be borne by the lessee who seeks the return of the lease deposit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Da18554, Jul. 12, 2013; 2004Da19647, Jan. 13, 2005).