1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 of the basic facts, it is recognized that the defendant completed the registration of establishment of chonsegwon (hereinafter "right to lease on a deposit basis") with the Daejeon District Court No. 124532 of Dec. 5, 2005 on the real estate listed in the attached list owned by the plaintiff as the ground of the contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis, which was received on October 29, 2005 by the defendant, from October 29, 2005 to October 28, 2007, on the ground of the contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter "right to lease on a deposit basis").

2. The cause of the claim and the judgment thereof

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the period of chonsegwon of this case has expired, the defendant is obligated to cancel the right to lease on a deposit basis to the plaintiff.

B. The right to lease on a deposit basis under the Civil Act, which has completed the registration of the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis, is of both the nature of the right to lease on a deposit basis and the nature of the right to lease on a deposit basis as well as the nature of the right to lease on a deposit basis. If the duration of the right to lease on a deposit basis expires, the right to lease on a deposit basis naturally terminates without cancellation of the registration of

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da35659 delivered on March 25, 2005, etc.). The effect of the right to lease on a deposit basis cannot be deemed extinguished solely on the expiration of the lease period, as alleged by the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff asserted, and there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff returned KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.