1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 2, 2014, the Defendant leased from C real estate indicated in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with a period of KRW 120 million from July 25, 2014 to July 25, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

B purchased the instant real estate from C on August 21, 2014, and succeeded to the lessor’s status under the instant lease agreement.

C. Meanwhile, around August 26, 2014, B asked the Plaintiff whether to obtain a loan of KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff as security, and the Plaintiff confirmed that the said real estate was a move-in report through a perusal by the relocated household and that there was no other lessee, and thereafter, on September 3, 2014, B loaned KRW 70 million to B, and completed the registration of establishment of the first-class neighboring real estate.

The Plaintiff filed a voluntary auction with Seoul Western District Court D, which did not pay interest on the loan, and received the decision on January 30, 2015. On February 3, 2015, the Defendant asserted that he/she is a lessee of the instant real estate and filed a report on the right and demand for distribution.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff 1's assertion that the parties violated the resident registration laws and regulations, and made a move-in report to "Seoul Eunpyeong-gu F and fourth floor" rather than "Seoul E 4.01", which is the domicile on the registry of the real estate of this case, and failed to meet the method of public announcement as prescribed by the Housing Lease Protection Act. Therefore, the defendant's right of lease

In particular, it is unreasonable to assert opposing power against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff could not have an opportunity to determine the identity of the “fourth floor” and “401” due to the Defendant’s negligence.

On the other hand, the defendant entered the lease contract and the registry.