Defendant C delivers to Defendant B the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. Defendant B shall be the Plaintiff 4,000.

A. The Plaintiff, from D directors E on March 29, 2013, set the deposit money of 44,000,000 won for real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by D directors (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and from March 30, 2013 to March 29, 2014, the Plaintiff established the right to lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “the instant right to lease on a deposit basis”) on April 4, 2013, as follows: (a) Defendant C, a son, who was an infant, established the right to lease on a deposit basis under Article 63977 of the Korea District Court’s receipt of the registration of Gwangju District Court (hereinafter “the instant right to lease on a deposit basis”).

B. Defendant B purchased the instant apartment on June 17, 2015 and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

C. Defendant C was living in the apartment of this case until the date of the closing of argument, and on March 6, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants that he would terminate the contract establishing the instant chonsegwon by sending the content certification to the Defendants.

[Ground of Recognition] For Defendant C: Each entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleading as to Defendant B: deemed confession (Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case ceased to exist due to the expiration of the term of existence, and Defendant C is obligated to deliver the apartment of this case to Defendant B, a lessor, and Defendant B is obligated to return KRW 44,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

As to this, Defendant C asserts that the amount of KRW 44,00,000 for the security deposit of this case is under the name of the Plaintiff, but the fact is that of the Plaintiff F and the Defendant C’s joint property.

However, according to the presumption of the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case, it is presumed that the right to request the return of the instant right to lease on a deposit basis or the right to request the return of the instant right to lease on a deposit basis belongs to the Plaintiff, the Defendant C’s assertion is not acceptable.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.