1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3.Paragraph 1 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. Grounds for the court's explanation of this case

B. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the reasoning of the judgment, except for the following modifications, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

【Supplementary Use】

B. Where, even if a contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit has not been concluded but a registration for the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis has been made in the name of a lessee under an agreement between a lessee and a lessor for the purpose of securing the claim for the return of a right to lease on a deposit basis, even if the contract to lease on a deposit was null and void as it constitutes false representation in conspiracy, if the third party was aware of the legal relationship formed by the contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit,

(2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the right to lease on a deposit basis under the instant lease agreement is deemed null and void since the agreement to lease on a deposit basis is “for securing a claim to return the lease deposit” in substance, and the agreement to lease on a deposit basis is null and void as the agreement to lease on a deposit basis is null and void. Ultimately, since the agreement to register the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis is null and void as the agreement to register the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit in this case is based on false representation, the Defendant is obligated to express his/her consent to the registration to cancel the

이에 대하여 피고는, 피고가 이 사건 전세권설정계약이 통정허위표시에 해당한다는 사정을 알지 못하는 선의의 제3자이므로 원고는 피고에 대하여 위 무효를 주장할 수 없다고 주장하나, 위 각 증거 및 인정사실에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 원고와 쿡앤쇼가 이 사건 임대차계약을 체결할 당시 피고의 직원 D이 참여하였고 그 자리에서 쿡앤쇼 앞으로의...