A. E on December 11, 2002, leased KRW 35,000,00 from F to KRW 113 of the lease deposit, and thereafter D succeeded to the status of the lessor by purchasing the above apartment.

B. On May 3, 2004, E was certified as a notary public as one of the law firms, etc. No. 2359 on the transfer and renunciation note that the above claim for the refund of the deposit was transferred to the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “each letter of this case”).

C. E died on December 14, 2004, and the Plaintiff and the Defendants inherited the deceased’s property.

D at KRW 35,00,000, the remainder of KRW 31,666,667, which was deducted by the Defendant’s obligee H from KRW 3,333,333 collected by the Defendant’s obligee, on August 21, 2015, the Plaintiffs, the Defendant, and I as the principal deposit, and the Seoul Central District Court deposited KRW 18125 in the name of the obligee unknown.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the deceased transferred the above lease deposit claim to the plaintiffs, the above lease deposit claim was reverted to the plaintiffs, the transferee.

In addition, in order for the deposited person to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods, the deposited person shall submit a document proving that the other deposited person has the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods in relation to the other deposited person. Therefore, the plaintiffs have interests to seek confirmation that the other deposited person has the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods against the defendant for the withdrawal of deposited goods.

Therefore, the right to claim a deposit of KRW 15,833,34 out of the above deposit is against Plaintiff A, and the right to claim a deposit of KRW 15,83,333 out of the deposit is against Plaintiff B.

B. The defendant's assertion 1 is argued to the effect that the transfer of the above lease deposit claim is not effective, since the deceased prepared the letter of this case in a state where he has no mental capacity due to dementia.