1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below against the defendant C.

1. The reason why this court is used for this part of the facts of recognition is that the part of "Article 1-2 (b)" in the first sentence of "Article 1-1-2 (b) of the judgment of the court of first instance is operated concurrently in the building of this case," and the part of "Article 113,000 won" in the third sentence of "Article 1-1-8 (h)" is the same as that of the corresponding part except for the case where "13,00 won" is "13,000 won". Thus, this part is cited as it is in accordance

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) concluded a new lease agreement with Defendant C on October 29, 2008, which was concluded with Defendant C on October 2008 with respect to the instant building, on or around October 2012, since the lease agreement between Defendant C and Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial on or around October 2012 was terminated pursuant to the new lease agreement, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million and damages for delay thereof (hereinafter “Claim 2). In addition, the Plaintiff’s purpose of operating the house house as a kind of business with B on October 8, 2012. The Plaintiff invested the right to use and make profits from the instant building, and the Plaintiff formed a partnership relationship by entering into a business agreement with the Plaintiff, which invests in human rights costs and labor in the house house, and the right to claim the return of the instant building, which is the property of the association, was reverted to the Plaintiff independently, and even if the right to claim the return of the leased property, even if withdrawn.

(B) On the other hand, the attachment and collection order of H’s claim against the claim to return the lease deposit of B is null and void since the execution claim of H, which is the execution claim, is false, and even if B waives the claim to return the deposit, the waiver is invalid as it is contrary to the partnership agreement with the Plaintiff.

In addition, among the removal cost, public room fee, overdue interest, brokerage fee, the disposal cost, and the cost of the closure of the business, which the defendant C claims to be eligible for the deduction, the overdue charge for the period of the factory room is 9,618.