1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 400,000.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 17, 2011, the Plaintiff’s husband C entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant on the lease deposit amount of KRW 400,000,000, and the lease term from April 6, 2011 to April 5, 2013, respectively, with respect to the lease deposit amount of KRW 2302 on the 23rd floor of the 23rd floor of the 23rd floor of the 23rd floor of the 1st floor of Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul. The Defendant agreed to complete the registration of lease on a deposit basis upon the receipt of the lease deposit, but failed to comply with the agreement.

B. On April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a lease contract stipulating that the lease deposit was KRW 400,000,000 for the instant apartment, and the lease term was from April 5, 2013 to April 5, 2015, respectively. Based on the said contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant completed the registration of establishment of a lease on a deposit basis, each of which was set out from April 5, 2013 to April 5, 2015 with respect to the instant apartment, as the Plaintiff, the lease right was set up as the Plaintiff, the lease right was set up as the lease right, the lease right was set up as the lease right was set up for the period from October 2 of the same year to April 5, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 6 evidence, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on April 1, 2013 on the instant apartment, and completed the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon on October 2 of the same year. Since the contract term was expired, the Defendant returned KRW 400,000,000 to the Plaintiff and paid damages for delay.

B. The tenant of the apartment of this case asserted by the defendant is not the plaintiff, but the defendant did not conclude the lease contract of this case with the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant does not bear the obligation to return the deposit for lease on a deposit basis against the plaintiff.

In addition, since the contract for the transfer of the right to lease on a deposit basis between the plaintiff and C is a fraudulent act, the defendant is not obligated to return the deposit to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. The registration of the relevant legal principles is completed by legitimate grounds for registration from the fact that it exists formally.