1. Defendant G: (a) with respect to KRW 3,00,000, KRW 3,000, KRW 2,000, KRW 3,000, KRW 3,000, KRW 3,000, KRW 3,000, and each of the said money to Plaintiff B, C, D, and

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties (1) The Network J was reported on June 15, 1943 by N on the date of birth as “M,” which is the child of the deceased father K and the non-party mother L.

(2) The deceased J was missing and brought up at the care facilities for the deceased, and during that process, the family register in the name of “M” existed, but the date of birth was zero on March 30, 1963 and the birth report was completed on March 30, 1963.

(3) On December 24, 1974, Plaintiff A married with Non-Party DJ and placed four souths of Plaintiff B, C, D, and E under its chain.

(4) The deceased J married with Defendant F on June 5, 2001.

Defendant F had Defendant G as his child between the former spouse.

(5) After marriage with Defendant F, the Network J died on February 4, 2015.

B. On July 22, 2013, Defendant F entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with P, setting the deposit amount of KRW 35 million with respect to the instant building owned by P and the term of lease from July 22, 2013 to July 22, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

At present, the owner of the instant building is I.

C. On the other hand, on September 24, 201, the deceased J lent KRW 20 million to Defendant G (e.g., KRW 20 million).

Defendant G repaid 6 million won to the Defendant on August 14, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 28, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiffs claiming for the transfer of the right to claim the return of the lease deposit against Defendant F against the Defendant F, taking into account the fact that the actual subject to the burden of the deposit in the instant lease agreement is the network J, that the network J actually resided in the said building alone while living alone, and that the relationship between the network J and the Defendant F, Defendant F merely lent the name of the lessee in the instant lease agreement to the network J, and thus, the network J is merely a person who lends the name of the lessee in the instant lease agreement to the network J.