1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The grounds for the plaintiff's claim are as follows.

First, the lease contract concluded by the defendant and the landlord C on September 2013 is null and void in accordance with Article 108 (1) of the Civil Code as a false declaration of intention.

Second, since the defendant is not a resident but a main purpose of collecting claims, it cannot be protected as the priority right of repayment of small-sum deposit under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

Judgment

The written evidence Nos. 1 through 5 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit and thus rejected.

On the other hand, the creditor's claim for revocation under Article 406 of the Civil Code is not included in the purport of the complaint, and it is not subject to judgment of this court