1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts - The plaintiff won the above building at the auction for compulsory auction (hereinafter “instant auction”) conducted with respect to the building listed in the attached Form C (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by C, and paid in full the auction price on September 27, 2017, and acquired the ownership of the instant building.

On the other hand, on June 1, 2012, the Defendant made a move-in report with the instant building as its domicile, and on June 28, 2012, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) that sets the deposit amount of KRW 240 million from C and the Defendant set the lease period from June 28, 2012 to June 28, 2014.

The defendant is residing in the building of this case even until the date of closing the argument of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 6, 11 evidence, Eul 7 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The instant lease agreement asserted as the cause of the claim is null and void as it was concluded by the Defendant and E with a false representation.

Therefore, the defendant is merely the most lessee and there is no right to possess the building of this case, and thus the plaintiff must deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

B. The fact that the Defendant did not obtain the fixed date in the instant lease agreement, the fact that the instant lease deposit was set higher than the market price of the instant building, and the fact that the Defendant did not present the lease agreement in the current status survey conducted in the instant auction procedure, is not a dispute between the parties, or that the entries in the evidence No. 5 are acknowledged by taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings.

However, facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 13 may be recognized by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole. In other words, the defendant made a move-in report on June 1, 2012 by making the building of this case to his domicile, and at the auction procedure of this case, the defendant made a move-in report on July 29, 2016.