1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 24, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant on a deposit of KRW 50,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 600,000, and the lease term of KRW 26,000 from October 26, 2016 to October 26, 2018 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”).

B. On February 17, 2017, the Defendant: (a) sold the instant building to C and D (hereinafter “C, etc.”) and agreed to succeed to all the lease agreements on the said building; and (b) on March 17, 2017, the registration of ownership transfer in the name C, etc. was completed.

C. On March 17, 2017, the Plaintiff became aware of the sale and ownership transfer of the instant building.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2, Eul No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since the ownership of the instant building is transferred to C, etc. and C, etc., the new owner, bears the duty to return the deposit to the Plaintiff, the instant lawsuit is deemed to have been filed against a person disqualified as a party.

However, in a lawsuit for performance, a person claiming the performance is qualified as the plaintiff, and the person claiming the performance from the plaintiff as the performance obligor is qualified as the defendant, and the existence or absence of the party's standing is based on the plaintiff's assertion itself. It does not require that the plaintiff is the actual performance obligor or the defendant is the actual performance obligor, but it is only a reason to determine whether the performance claim or the performance obligation is actually a performance obligor, and it is not a matter to determine whether the performance claim or the performance obligation is a party's standing

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff 1’s assertion in the parties concerned did not intend to succeed to a lease agreement with C, etc. after the owner of the instant building changes. In March 27, 2017, the Plaintiff did not intend to succeed to the lease agreement.