1. The Defendant’s KRW 61,240,505 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from October 26, 2017 to April 27, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 3, 2014, the conclusion of a housing lease agreement between Nonparty C and the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s occupancy C leased Pyeongtaek-si apartment and 201 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Plaintiff under the following conditions.

- Lease deposit: 70 million won, and the lease period: Two years (before March 8, 2016), the Plaintiff paid the lease deposit of KRW 70 million to C on March 5, 2014, and moved into the apartment of this case. A fixed date of the lease contract on the same day, and completed the resident registration moving-in procedure.

B. Around March 2016, the Plaintiff, who acquired the instant apartment and conducted the auction procedure, notified C of the intention of refusing to renew the lease. C sold the instant apartment to the Defendant on May 10, 2016 without returning the lease deposit, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 13, 2016.

Since then, there was a decision to commence voluntary auction on December 9, 2016 regarding the instant apartment, and the instant apartment was awarded to a third party, such as E and F, around September 18, 2017 at the above auction procedure.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff received the dividend of KRW 8759,495 out of the deposit amount of KRW 70,000,000,000, which is lower than the senior mortgagee, in the distribution procedure of the above auction procedure, and removed from the apartment of this case around October 26, 2017.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, or is not clearly disputed, Gap evidence 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. According to the above facts, the defendant who succeeded to the lessor status of the plaintiff, who is a tenant meeting the requirements for counterclaim under the Housing Lease Protection Act, was obligated to return the lease deposit to the plaintiff on the grounds of termination of the lease agreement. Thus, the defendant, barring any special circumstance, deducted the amount of the deposit that the plaintiff received in the auction procedure from KRW 759,495, which is the amount of the deposit that the plaintiff received in the auction procedure, from the plaintiff 61,240,505, and the