1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 1, 2014, D concluded a lease agreement with the Defendants on the “Seoul E Apartment and 6 Dong 313” (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Defendants as of April 14, 2016, setting the period of KRW 360,000,000,000 for lease deposit, and the period of April 14, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

D on April 1, 2014, among the claims for the refund of the lease deposit with respect to the apartment of this case, the amount of the lease deposit was paid to the Defendants around that time, including the money loaned from the new bank, a new bank for the purpose of leasing the lease deposit.

C. The instant lease agreement expired as of April 14, 2016, and the Defendants concluded a lease agreement on the instant apartment with the period from March 29, 2016, setting the period from April 14, 201, to April 16, 201, to April 16, 201, KRW 160 million, monthly rent of KRW 90 million, and the period from April 15, 2016 to April 14, 2018.

On April 4, 2016, the Defendants subrogated for the amount equivalent to KRW 200,000,000 for the loan of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of KRW 360,000,000 in the name of the F of each month.

E. On May 30, 2016, the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order with respect to the claim for the return of lease deposit against the instant apartment, which D was returned by the Defendants, based on the authentic copy of a notarial deed with the executory power of No. 352, Seoul Eastern District Court 2016, which was the Seoul Eastern District Court 2016, upon which a notary public issued a seizure and collection order with respect to the instant claim for the return of lease deposit against the instant apartment (the amount claimed: Defendant B8,274,098; Defendant C8,200,000; hereinafter “instant collection order”); and the instant collection order was served on the Defendants on June 27, 2016.

F. Meanwhile, the Defendants, in the future of G and H on December 1, 2016, completed the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the instant apartment on October 3, 2016, and H had the lease deposit with the F on June 14, 2017.