1. The defendant shall pay 45,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On April 9, 2016, the Plaintiff is deemed to have two-story housing owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant housing”) between the Defendant and the Defendant, as well as the two-story housing owned by the Defendant.

A) Of the two floors, a lease agreement is concluded with regard to KRW 45 million on the two-story 34.02 square meters (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) and with the period from April 9, 2016 to April 8, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) On June 29, 2017, on the instant housing and its site, the Changwon District Court rendered a decision to commence a compulsory auction by official auction for real estate on June 29, 2017, upon request by the Defendant D, by means of payment of the balance of the sales contract to be paid by the Defendant to D on behalf of the Defendant.

Meanwhile, on October 15, 2015 and November 9, 2015, the establishment registration of the instant housing and the instant site was completed with the maximum debt amount of KRW 143 million in the name of the Dobong Saemaul Depository, and KRW 39 million in the name of the Dobong Saemaul Depository. On the other hand, upon the application of the said Dobong Saemaul Depository, the decision to commence an auction of real estate was rendered with the Changwon District Court’s air support fund as to the instant housing and the instant site on July 12, 2017.

3) The housing and the site of this case were sold at the above auction procedure, but the plaintiff did not receive any distribution at all at the above auction procedure. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4, and the purport of whole pleadings

B. Since the instant lease agreement was completed upon the sale of the instant housing at the above auction procedure, the Defendant is obligated to refund the lease deposit amount of KRW 45 million to the Plaintiff.

2. Regarding the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim is unjustifiable, as the Plaintiff did not exercise his right despite being able to receive some of the deposit as the priority lessee in the above auction procedure.

The defendant's assertion and the defendant's assertion.