1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) simultaneously with the delivery of real estate indicated in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was originally owned by C. However, on November 28, 2015, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate from C from November 28, 2015 to November 28, 2017, with the deposit amount of KRW 40,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 50,000, and the deposit amount of KRW 50,000, and the period of November 28, 2017, and thereafter, purchased the instant real estate by delivery to D designated by C.

B. On November 29, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the resident registration of the instant real estate.

C. On June 20, 2016, the Defendant purchased the entire multi-household housing in Nam-gu Busan, including the instant real estate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer. D.

On November 28, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the Plaintiff had no intention to renew the lease contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] 1 to 4 (including paper numbers), the witness C's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the principal claim, the Plaintiff received the instant real estate from C and completed resident registration, thereby satisfying the requisite to set up against Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act. The Defendant, as a buyer, succeeded to the lessor status of C as to the instant real estate pursuant to Article 3(4) of the Housing Lease Protection Act.

Since the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant real estate has expired on November 28, 2017, the Defendant is obligated to return the instant real estate to the Plaintiff simultaneously with the delivery of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

B. The Defendant, at the time of purchasing the entire multi-household housing, including the instant real estate, knew that the instant real estate was in a public room, and accordingly, did not deduct the deposit of the instant real estate from the sales price, and only around November 2017, known that the Plaintiff was residing in the instant real estate.