1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 8, 2010, the Plaintiff leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 110,000,000,000 from March 31, 2010 to March 31, 2011 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), among the buildings owned by Nonparty B (hereinafter “instant housing”), the second floor of which is 84.27 square meters from the land of Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant housing”), which was owned by Nonparty B, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 110,00,000,000,000,000,000,000

B. Since March 2013, the Plaintiff demanded B to return the lease deposit, and B promised to refund the lease deposit by March 31, 2014, but failed to comply therewith.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B with the Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap21675 against the Plaintiff, and the said court accepted the simultaneous performance claim of B on August 22, 2014, and sentenced B to the judgment that “B shall receive the second floor of 84.27 square meters from the Plaintiff and, at the same time, pay KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff.”

On the other hand, on July 13, 2011, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on July 5, 201 under the name of Nonparty E, and the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on October 15, 201 under the name of the Defendant on October 16, 201, respectively.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return the lease deposit on or around February 20, 2014, and the Defendant responded to the purport that the Plaintiff recognized the Defendant’s obligation to return the lease deposit on or around March 17, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In full view of the purport of the entire argument in the facts of recognition under paragraph (1), the Plaintiff is a lessee with opposing power as stipulated by the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the Defendant, the transferee of the instant house, succeeds to the status of B, and in this case, the obligation to return the lease deposit also is transferred in combination with the ownership of the instant house, and thus the Defendant is the Plaintiff in B