1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff has 11,280,566 won and damages for delay against B.

(B) On February 25, 1998, Busan District Court Decision 2012Gapo194499, No. 201499, Feb. 25, 1998, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon (hereinafter referred to as the “right to lease on a deposit basis”) by setting the term of February 23, 1998 as the contract for establishing the right to lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter referred to as the “right to lease on a deposit basis”) from February 23, 1998 to February 23, 200.

B is currently insolvent.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2-2, the fact-finding results of this court's fact-finding, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The right to lease on a deposit basis of the claim must be cancelled for the following reasons:

The duration of the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case is from February 23, 1998 to February 23, 200, and since the duration of the right to lease on a deposit basis has expired, the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case was extinguished.

B. Since the defendant lost opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act, he cannot exercise the right to claim the return of the deposit money in this case.

The plaintiff, who is the creditor B, has reached the claim of this case by subrogation.

3. Determination

A. The Civil Act, which has completed the registration of establishment of chonsegwon on the first argument, has both the nature as a real right for use and the nature as a real right for security, and if the duration of chonsegwon expires, the right for use of chonsegwon is naturally extinguished without cancellation of the registration of establishment of chonsegwon, and the effect of the registration of establishment of chonsegwon shall continue to exist until the return of the deposit within the scope of the right for security real right.

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the right to lease on a deposit basis as a real right is immediately extinguished upon the expiration of the term of existence of the right to lease on a deposit basis cannot be accepted.

The Defendant’s claim as above was extinguished by prescription.