1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 5, 2015, the Plaintiff drafted a lease agreement (a evidence No. 1-1, hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the lessor, Defendant, lessee, Plaintiff, and lease deposit KRW 100 million, and the lease period from October 30, 2015 to October 30, 2017, with respect to the F building G on land (hereinafter “instant housing”) on the land outside Manan-gu, Mayang-gu, Mayang-gu, Mayang-gu, the Defendant-owned (hereinafter “instant housing”).

B. On March 16, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) received a successful bid of the instant housing on March 16, 2018 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff, from the voluntary auction procedure (hereinafter “instant voluntary auction procedure”) that was applied to the Suwon District Court Support I with respect to the instant housing around April 2017.

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

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. On October 30, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the instant housing amounting to KRW 100 million; and (b) paid the lease deposit; and (c) occupied the instant housing from December 21, 2015.

However, with respect to the housing of this case, the voluntary auction procedure of this case was conducted, and the plaintiff did not have been fully distributed the lease deposit.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the lease deposit of KRW 100 million and the delay damages.

B. If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the signature affixed to the signatureer affixed to the document 1 document is created, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is actually presumed to be based on the will of the signatureer, barring any special circumstance, and once the authenticity of the signature is presumed to have been created, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been created. However, the above presumption is broken if it is revealed that the act of affixing the seal was done by a person other than the nameer of the document, so the document presenter is duly delegated by the legitimate title by the signatureer.