A. On March 9, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “the lease on a deposit basis”) between F and F as the owner of the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “the instant building”), and received a deposit. The Plaintiff entered into a lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “the lease on a deposit basis”) between F and F with a deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 400,000,000, and the period from March 20, 2006 to March 20, 2008.

B. On March 22, 2006, the Ulsan District Court received 12217, the registration of establishment of chonsegwon in the name of the person having chonsegwon, as to the instant building, was completed from March 20, 2006 to March 20, 2006, with the term of 20 million won, from March 20, 2006 to March 20, 2008.

C. The F deceased on April 24, 2009, and the Defendants, their children, inherited. D.

The lease contract of this case was terminated on March 201, while the term of existence had been implicitly renewed and continued after the lapse of the term, and around that time, the Plaintiff returned KRW 20 million to the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport before oral argument

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the lease contract of this case was terminated, and the Defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of lease on a deposit basis for each inheritance share to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

B. The summary of Defendant C, D, and E’s assertion is as follows.

In other words, at the time of the conclusion of the lease contract of this case, the Plaintiff operated the beauty room directly in the building of this case, but the Plaintiff was paid KRW 10 million for the lessee F to receive the premium of KRW 10,000,000,000 for the key money from which the Plaintiff permitted the lessee F to use the inside facilities and equipment of the Plaintiff’s beauty room. Upon the termination of the lease contract of this case, the Plaintiff received the return of internal facilities and equipment, etc., and the Plaintiff did not return the said premium to the person having a right to lease on a deposit basis, but the Plaintiff did not return the said premium, which

In this regard, the Defendants were able to do so.