1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2, 2011, the Defendant leased a building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by C from December 2, 201, with the lease deposit of KRW 120 million, the lease deposit of KRW 20 million from December 20, 201 to December 19, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) and began to occupy the building by delivery on December 20, 201, and obtained a fixed date lease contract after completing the move-in report on December 26, 201, the Defendant resided in the instant building by implied renewal of the said lease contract between C and C at the end of the closing date of the instant contract.

B. D, etc. applied for a compulsory auction of real estate for the instant building to Changwon District Court Tongwon District Court Tong-gu, on August 2014, and the Plaintiff purchased the said building and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 22, 2015 in the case of application for compulsory auction of the said real estate.

C. On May 26, 2015, the Changwon District Court through the Changwon District Court distributed the proceeds from the sale of the building of this case to the creditors demanding a distribution of the above real estate auction application case. The senior wage creditors received all the proceeds from the sale, and the defendant did not receive any distribution of the lease deposit claim.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul’s Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant succeeded to the status of the lessor of the instant lease agreement against the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff claimed the return of the lease deposit by asserting that the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of the lessor of the instant lease agreement. However, the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to refund the lease deposit to the Defendant, and the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff should withdraw from the said building and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the Plaintiff.

B. According to the facts of recognition under paragraph (1), the defendant is stipulated in Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act for the instant building.