The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 18, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with Defendant C, D, and E by setting the deposit amount of KRW 125,00,000 as well as the lease period from October 23, 2017 to October 22, 2019 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet jointly owned by the Defendants in their respective shares of shares of 1/3 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement.” The Plaintiff is residing in the instant apartment after completing the move-in report on October 23, 2013, after paying all the aforementioned deposit to the Defendants.

B. On March 19, 2019, Defendant C, D, and E sold the instant apartment to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”). After completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant apartment on March 22, 2019, Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”).

(hereinafter “this case’s transfer registration”). 【No ground for recognition”, 【No ground for recognition, Gap’s Nos. 1, 2, and 4, Eul’s evidence No. 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's ground for claim

A. For the following reasons, Defendant C, D, and E still have a lessor status under the instant lease agreement, and thus, Defendant C, D, and E is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a partial amount of KRW 30 million out of the security deposit under the instant lease agreement and damages for delay.

1) After the Defendants notified the Plaintiff of the fact of selling the instant apartment, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the succession to a lessor’s status within a reasonable period of time. 2) The Defendants owned and leased multiple apartment units in the Jinju area, and the apartment price did not reach the deposit amount due to the aggravation of real estate competition, the said Defendants sold apartment units collectively to the Defendant Company, etc. for the purpose of evading the obligation to refund the deposit amount.

This is null and void in accordance with Article 103 of the Civil Code as a juristic act contrary to good morals and other social order.

B. As seen in the above 2, the sales of the apartment of this case is null and void.