A. On October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the second floor No. 201 from Defendant B to November 7, 2015, the lease deposit amount of KRW 40,000,000, and the lease period of KRW 40,000, and the lease period of KRW 8, 201, among the four-story detached houses owned by the Defendants jointly by the Defendants (hereinafter “instant housing”).

Since the Defendant did not refund KRW 40,000,000 paid by the Plaintiff despite the expiration of the above lease term, it is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above lease deposit amount of KRW 40,000,000 and delay damages therefor.

(b) Judgment by service based on which recognition is applicable (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. On October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased 201 of the instant housing owned by Defendant B, which was jointly owned by the Defendants, from Defendant B, to November 7, 2015, by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 40,00,000, and the lease period of KRW 40,000 from November 8, 2013 to November 7, 2015.

Although Defendant B0,000 lessor was stipulated in the lease agreement, in light of the fact that the instant house is jointly owned by the Defendants, and that the Defendants are mother-and-child parties, it is reasonable to deem Defendant C as also a lessor of the said lease

Therefore, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant C to refund the lease deposit amount of KRW 40,000,000 and the delay damages therefor to the Plaintiff.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, there is no dispute, and evidence No. 3, the housing and the site of this case are jointly owned by Defendant B B/3 and Defendant C 1/3, and the Defendants are recognized as having a mother-and-child relationship.

However, there is no dispute, the following circumstances are acknowledged by each entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings, i.e., the lease agreement (Evidence A 1) concluded with the defendant Eul entered into with the defendant Eul as the landlord, and the plaintiff notified only the defendant Eul of the return of the lease deposit upon the expiration of the lease term, and ii) the defendants mother and child.