1. The plaintiff's appeal is all 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. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or adds to this court, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. After having opposing power against a third party under the Housing Lease Protection Act, D, the lessee of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff, upon receiving a successful bid, succeeded to the status of Defendant B, who was a lessor under a lease agreement, and accordingly, Defendant B, who went beyond the status of a lessor, bears the obligation to return the deposit under a lease agreement with Defendant B.

However, in the case of this case, the plaintiff had already filed a lawsuit against the defendant Eul prior to the successful bid, and in the lawsuit, the decision of recommending reconciliation that "the defendant Eul would deliver the real estate of this case from D and simultaneously pay the deposit amount of KRW 80 million to D" became final and conclusive.

As can be seen, in cases where a transferee of a house which is the object of a right of lease with opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act already assumes the obligation to return a deposit to a lessee pursuant to a decision of recommending a settlement with a lessee before succeeding to the status of a lessor under a lease agreement, the obligation to return a deposit under a lease agreement that a transferee who succeeds to the status of a lessor under the Housing Lease Protection Act bears to a lessee and the obligation that the previous lessor bears according to a decision of recommending settlement

The plaintiff is not a repayment to D of the principal's obligation under the lease agreement due to the succession of the lessor's status, but the obligation the defendant B bears to D in accordance with the decision of recommending settlement.