1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant is the co-defendant E of the first instance trial and the plaintiff A and B respectively.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the following parts, from the 11th to the 12th, of the 11th of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is identical to the statement of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 42

2) Therefore, the plaintiffs' erroneous damages should be calculated. ① The first lessee's deposit at the time of the conclusion of the plaintiff A's lease agreement was 200,00,000 won in aggregate, the maximum debt amount of senior mortgage was 420,000,000 won in aggregate, and the appraisal value of the building of this case was 819,648,360 won in the appraisal value of the building of this case. Since multiple small tenants did not enter into the lease agreement on the building of this case or about 80% of the appraisal value at the auction procedure of this case was 65,98,01 won in total, 80,01 won in the appraisal value was sold at the auction procedure of this case, it appears that the whole amount of the lease deposit could have been distributed if the building of this case was sold at 65,98,01 won in total, 819,648,360 won in consideration of the circumstances that the plaintiff B could have been aware of the lease deposit at the expiration of the lease term of this case.

E. According to the theory of the lawsuit, the defendant's 13,50,000 won each to Co-Defendant E and the plaintiff A and B of the first instance trial (=45,000,000 won each x 30%) 6,90,000 won each to the plaintiff D (=23,00,000 won x 30%) and each of the above amounts are the plaintiffs.