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 parties' arguments and the reorganization of issues;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff leased the instant building from C who was the owner of the instant building and had the opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act. Since the Defendant succeeded to the lessor’s status by acquiring the ownership of the instant building, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff. (2) Since the Plaintiff continued to occupy the instant building, the lease deposit claim was not extinguished by the statute of limitations, and the Defendant’s assertion for the completion of the statute of limitations constitutes abuse of rights.

Since the plaintiff occupies the building of this case as an exercise of the right to simultaneous performance defense, it does not constitute an illegal possession. Since the lease of this case constitutes the so-called obligatory lease on the basis of the so-called obligatory lease without monthly rent, there is no unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the possession and use.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff without any title to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).

(2) At the time when the Plaintiff asserts that the instant building was leased, the Plaintiff was in a state of not obtaining approval for use. As such, the Plaintiff prepared a false lease agreement with C in order to receive dividends from the auction procedure, pretended to be a small lessee of the instant building, and did not lease the instant building. Even if the Plaintiff was recognized as the lessee of the instant building and the Defendant succeeded to the lessor’s status, the Plaintiff’s claim for the refund of the lease deposit was already extinguished by the prescription on January 25, 2012, when ten years have elapsed since January 25, 2002, when the Plaintiff claimed the return of the lease deposit to the Defendant after the expiration of the instant lease term. (2) The Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant building, and the Plaintiff was subsequent to the Defendant’s acquisition of the ownership of the instant building, and the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of the instant case became ten years ago.