1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 2, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the deposit amount of KRW 90 million, and the term of lease from October 17, 2014 to October 16, 2016 with regard to the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Building 502 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Defendant, as the representative of the construction company that constructed the instant real estate, proposed the Plaintiff to purchase the instant real estate after leasing it to the Plaintiff.

C. On January 6, 2015, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff to sell the instant real estate to D by determining that the status under a lease agreement with the Plaintiff is accepted by the buyer, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

When concluding a sales contract with the defendant, the plaintiff was present at the time of signing the sales contract.

E. Upon filing a move-in report on October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report with the Plaintiff, and subsequently filed a move-in report by correcting the number of houses to 504 on January 6, 2015, instead of 502 units, and completed the move-in report.

F. D, while completing the registration of ownership transfer, set the right to collateral security of KRW 260 million with three units including the instant real estate as joint collateral, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 260 million as joint collateral.

G. On July 11, 2016, the Busan District Court rendered a decision to commence the auction of real estate E on the instant real estate.

H. The Defendant made a demand for distribution in the above auction procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Uncontentious facts, Gap 1 through 6 evidence, each entry of Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion made a move-in report by erroneously stating the number of houses and did not have opposing power on January 6, 2015. Therefore, D, a purchaser of the instant real estate, did not succeed to the lease relationship as a matter of course.

Since the plaintiff, a tenant who has failed to have opposing power, did not consent to the succession of the status of the lessor, D is merely the fact that the repayment obligation of the lease deposit concurrently has been acquired or the performance has been acquired, and the defendant still has the obligation to return the deposit as the lessor.