1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 30, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant sales contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s wooden machine and 33.06 square meters of multi-story housing in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, which was owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”), with respect to the purchase price of KRW 53 million, and the down payment of KRW 5 million among them was to be paid until September 30, 201.

B. At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the instant lease contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and D with regard to the instant real estate, which was between August 31, 201 and August 30, 2013.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant determined “the condition that is a road in the current urban planning and that only the building is sold and sold. The seller at the remaining time of the termination and transfer of the loan (one million won in daily gold), and the deposit for lease on a deposit basis (one hundred million won in daily gold) shall be settled by the buyer, and the purchaser shall be deducted by succession.” By the time of removal, the term “the conditions of residence of the tenant until

C. On October 18, 2013, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant a total of KRW 13 million after deducting KRW 40 million from the deposit for the lease of this case, among the remainder of KRW 5 million and KRW 48 million, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate on August 29, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant would accept the obligation to return the lease deposit of this case in lieu of the payment of the purchase and sale balance, and the Defendant failed to comply with the claim for the refund of the lease deposit from lessee D after August 31, 2013.

Accordingly, in order to escape from the detention of the lease relationship that is succeeded to by filing an objection against the succession of the status of the lessor who is the transferee of the Housing Lease Protection Act.