1. The defendant shall pay KRW 150,000 to the plaintiff.

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

3.Paragraph 1.

1. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 4 of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that from September 8, 2012, the Plaintiff leased (hereinafter “the instant lease contract”) the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul D 201 (hereinafter “instant house”) a deposit of KRW 150 million from C, and from October 8, 2012 to October 7, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the instant house and filed a move-in report on October 11, 2012; the instant house transferred its ownership to E on January 11, 2013, and to the Defendant on October 1, 2014.

According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case was terminated on October 7, 2014, and Article 3(3) of the former Housing Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 12043, Aug. 13, 2013) provides that the assignee of a rental house which is the object of a lease satisfying the requirements for counterclaim under Article 3(1) of the same Act shall be deemed to have succeeded to the status of the lessor. Thus, it shall be deemed as the obligatory succession provision under the law. Thus, the defendant is exempted from the obligation to return the deposit.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Da49523 Decided January 17, 2013). Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the said deposit to the Plaintiff KRW 150 million.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion and judgment, the Defendant asserted that, as F, the true owner of the instant house is merely the nominal owner, and the Plaintiff is well aware of this fact, the Defendant did not return the deposit to the Plaintiff. However, as alleged by the Defendant, a title trust agreement exists between the Defendant and F with respect to the instant house.

However, pursuant to Article 4 (3) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, the defendant cannot assert a title trust agreement to the plaintiff regardless of the plaintiff’s good faith or bad faith. Thus, the defendant’s above assertion is without merit without any need to further examine it.

The defendant is the plaintiff by F.