1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added the following determination as to the matters alleged in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1) Although the Defendant informed the Plaintiff of the sale of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff did not take any measure and did not raise any objection ought to be seen as impliedly consenting to the Plaintiff’s acceptance of the Defendant’s obligation to return the lease deposit, which is the buyer of the instant real estate, with the exemption from liability. 2) The Plaintiff did not have the opposing power despite the opportunity to have opposing power, and there was no error as to the fact that the Defendant believed to deviate from the lessor’s position and sold the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff did not have the opposing power. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case cannot be permitted in violation

3) Under Article 8(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act and Article 10(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to preferential reimbursement of KRW 20,000,000 out of the lease deposit in this case. Therefore, the above amount that the Plaintiff is entitled to preferential reimbursement should be deducted from the Defendant’s debt amount. (B) As to the first argument, it is insufficient to recognize that MT implicitly consented to the Defendant’s implied acceptance of the Defendant’s obligation to return the lease deposit, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

As to the second argument, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case contravenes the good faith principle, and there is evidence to acknowledge it differently.