A. The non-party E completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 19, 2004 with respect to the above-mentioned G apartment Nos. 102 Dong 1302 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. Since January 17, 2009, E died on January 17, 2009, E’s inheritor is Nonparty H and their children.

C. On March 27, 2009, H entered into a lease agreement with lessor E and lessee I with respect to the instant apartment (hereinafter “the first contract”). D. On November 5, 2011, H and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the lessor and lessee with the lessor for KRW 120 million for the lease deposit and KRW 24 months for the lease term (hereinafter “the second contract”). On November 10, 201, H and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the lessor and lessee for the instant apartment, with respect to the instant apartment, with the lessor and lessee for KRW 120 million for the lease deposit and KRW 24 months for the lease term (hereinafter “the second contract”). < Amended by Act No. 1010, Nov. 10, 2011>

E. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on July 31, 2014, upon the application of the Korea Exchange Bank, Korea Exchange Bank, which is a collateral security creditor, the first instance court rendered a decision to commence the auction of the instant apartment on July 31, 2014. In the instant distribution procedure, the Defendant, as a housing lessee having opposing power, received the dividend of KRW 113,117,486 as the lease deposit amount, and the distribution schedule was formulated on April 13,

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the lease agreement on the apartment of this case was concluded at will regardless of the plaintiffs, and it is not effective against the plaintiffs since H, which is merely a 3/7 equity right holder of the apartment of this case. Thus, 64,638,564 won, which constitutes the plaintiffs' shares among the defendant's dividends on the apartment of this case, should be reduced.

On the other hand, the defendant is the legal representative of the plaintiff B, who was the principal and the minor at the time, and is a legally concluded contract with the defendant.