1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Defendants shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a child between D(Ma) and D(O).

B. The Plaintiff and D entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) on December 27, 2010, with the content that the Plaintiff leases three rooms of the 10th floor of the E-ground building (hereinafter “the instant leased object”) owned by the Plaintiff from the Do Government-si, the deposit amount of KRW 150 million, the down payment of KRW 13 million, and the lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) from February 25, 201 to February 24, 2013.

C. On March 16, 2009, the Plaintiff made a move-in report to the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G Apartment 408 Dong 1109 (hereinafter “Seoul apartment”). On February 25, 2011, the Plaintiff made a move-in report to the domicile of “Ma, 10 stories at the city of the Government” and received the fixed date in the instant lease agreement on the same day.

On July 13, 2012, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the leased object of this case on the ground of trust in the future of the trustee K non-real estate trust corporation. On January 20, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of a housing lease on the basis of the leasehold on the leasehold order on January 20, 2015 as to the leased object of this case.

E. On July 8, 2015, the Defendants purchased an aggregate building (hereinafter “instant aggregate building”) composed of 69 sections, including the leased object from the K non-Real Estate Trust Co., Ltd., and on August 7, 2015, the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant aggregate building on July 8, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4-1, 4-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts that as a lessee with opposing power over the leased object of this case, the Plaintiff sought the return of the lease deposit to the Defendants, the owner of the leased object of this case.

B. The Defendants do not actually pay the lease deposit, and thus, the instant lease agreement is null and void as a false representation of conspiracy.