1. The Defendants jointly share Defendant B and Defendant D’s building E and F, Changwon-si E, Changwon-si, the Plaintiff.

In addition to the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, around August 12, 2016, the plaintiff entered into a lease contract (hereinafter "the lease contract of this case") with respect to the housing of this case with the defendant C, who is the representative of the deceased G (hereinafter "the deceased") who was the owner of the housing of this case as stated in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter "the Housing of this case") around August 12, 2016, with the period of KRW 180,000, and from September 29, 2016 to September 28, 2018. At that time, the plaintiff paid the deceased the above lease deposit of KRW 180,000,000 to deliver the housing of this case and used it as the date of closing argument of this case. At the time of entering into the lease contract of this case, the defendant C entered itself as "joint guarantor", signed it, and thereafter, entered the status of the deceased on March 27, 2018.

According to each of the above facts, the instant lease agreement was terminated on September 28, 2018 after the lessor’s status was succeeded to Defendant B and D, and terminated on September 28, 2018, and the obligation to return the lease deposit by the joint lessee is an indivisible obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da23928, Feb. 12, 199). Defendant C, who is the joint lessee of the instant lease agreement, Defendant B, D, and their joint and several sureties, is simultaneously liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 180,000,000 as the said lease deposit, jointly with the Plaintiff.

Defendant C’s assertion to the effect that the meaning of “joint guarantee” stated in the instant lease agreement is premised on the fact that the instant building is not inherited, and that the instant building was inherited to Defendant C and D, and thus, Defendant C’s joint and several liability is not nonexistent. However, the instant lease agreement merely states that it is a joint and several surety, and the same condition as the Defendant C’s assertion is not inherited.