1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The grounds for the plaintiff's claim are as shown in the attached Form.

It is referred to in paragraph (1) or (2) of the attached Table.

In light of the purport that the defendant's use of the Housing Lease Protection Act cannot be protected by the aforementioned Act even if the defendant is the most lessee or the genuine lessee, and the plaintiff's assertion as stated in the attached Form 1, it is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion only by the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including the provisional number), and there is no other proof of the plaintiff.

Rather, evidence Nos. 7 to 10, Nos. 13-1 to 16 of the evidence Nos. 16 is the Google Libery.

According to each entry, the fact that the defendant paid the lease deposit and actually occupied for the purpose of residence can be recognized.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

The obligee's right of revocation is examined.

The issue is whether the debt exceeds C as of April 19, 2014. In full view of the fact-finding results of this court's fact-finding on Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including paper numbers), the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the head of Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and the President of the Korea Credit Information Institute, the general purport of the arguments in response to each of the financial transaction information provided by the Kocheon Credit Union, the Yongsan Credit Union, and the Korean National Bank, as of April 19, 2014, C is the active property of KRW 3.3 billion prior to the lease, and the negative property is 3.

However, it is difficult to readily conclude that C’s debt excess solely on the basis of such a minor difference.

Since C received a deposit from the Defendant and instead, new liability for the return of future deposit occurs, it is difficult to view that this part does not affect the status of property and its excess has deepened due to it.

(E) The sale of real estate, which is one property, shall be deemed to be different from the case where the sale of real estate is easily replaced with money for consumption. Despite the court’s promotion of proof, there is no other

The state of excess of C's liability at the time.