1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. 【Grounds for Recognition of Facts】 The fact that there has been no dispute, and the purport of Gap’s 1 or 4 as a whole, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

The Defendant purchased the real estate listed in the separate sheet from C on September 30, 2001 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 29, 2001. The Plaintiff leased KRW 10,000,000,00 for lease deposit money, which was connected in order to each point of (a) part of the above real estate (hereinafter “the instant house”) from C, the owner of which was at the time of the Defendant’s purchase of the said real estate, in the order of indicated in the separate sheet No. 1,2,3,4, and 1.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On November 21, 2002, the Plaintiff reported a marriage with D on November 21, 2002, and reported a divorce on June 7, 2010.

On February 28, 2011, the Defendant changed the lease agreement between D and the instant case to rent KRW 150,000 for monthly rent without any deposit, and accordingly, the Defendant returned KRW 10,000,000 to D on the same day.

From June 2012, the Plaintiff and D did not pay the monthly rent for the instant house to the Defendant. Accordingly, around February 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant lease contract will be terminated on the grounds of the delinquency in payment of monthly rent, and the Plaintiff and D received a favorable judgment around October 1, 2013. The said judgment became final and conclusive around that time because the Plaintiff did not file an appeal.

(Skcheon District Court 2013Kadan6215). 2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment thereon

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was a divorce between D and his spouse on June 7, 2010, and as such, D had no authority to modify the lease contract on behalf of the Plaintiff and refund the deposit, around February 28, 201.

Even if the defendant changed the lease contract with D, a non-authorized person, and returned the lease deposit to D, it shall not be effective as against the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant.