1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. Under the underlying facts, the following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking account of the whole purport of the pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence 1-4 and Gap evidence 4.

On December 6, 2017, the Defendants leased to D the lease deposit of KRW 2 million, KRW 1,300,000 per month, and KRW 24 months for a fixed period of 24 months, the two-story store 91.2 square meters in the building of reinforced concrete in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant store”).

D around January 15, 2018, around January 15, 2018, the restaurant operation began at the instant store.

B. Around July 2018, the Plaintiff lent D KRW 5.4 million to D, prepared a notarial deed around that time, and filed an application for a seizure and collection order with D as the debtor, the Defendants as the third debtor, Sungwon District Court support 2019TTT2120. On April 12, 2019, the court issued a seizure and collection order against the third debtor of the above lease deposit against the third debtor on April 12, 2019, and the original copy of the decision was served on the Defendants on April 17, 2019.

C. The instant store was delivered to the Defendants around May 2019.

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff, based on the collection order of this case against the defendants, sought the return of one million won among the claims to return the lease deposit of this case against the defendants of D, who are the claims subject to the seizure and collection order of this case, and against this, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case is groundless since the defendant, D and D's son, prior to the delivery of the seizure and collection order of this case, the plaintiff agreed to change the lessee from D to F from D to F, and because F becomes the tenant of the above store, the obligation to return the lease deposit of D becomes extinct.

B. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 1-16 of the judgment, the Defendants changed the lessee under the above lease agreement from D to F, and the rent is KRW 1.2 million per month between D and D representing F on February 3, 2018.