The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 2, 2018, the network D (Death on October 20, 2019) leased from Nonparty C a deposit of 50,000 won, monthly rent of 1.6 million won, and the period from December 11, 2018 to December 10, 2020.

B. C filed a lawsuit against the deceased’s heir H and I on December 19, 2019 for the delivery of a building by the Eastern District Court 2019 group 163044 group of Seoul Eastern District Court, but H and I responded and submitted a written answer to “I filed a request for a waiver of inheritance on January 7, 2020,” and submitted a written answer on March 10, 2020.

(c)

On March 18, 2020 of the deceased D's children, H and I, the deceased D's children, a decision to waive their inheritance (Seoul Family Court 2020 shot 5078). The defendant is the mother of the deceased D's father.

(d)

C On May 28, 2020, on the ground that it constitutes a case in which the creditor cannot be identified without fault of the mission after Article 487 of the Civil Act, the person was designated as “the heir I and H of the plaintiff and the network D,” and deposited KRW 26,757,640, which deducts unpaid rent, management fee, etc. from the deposit for lease (Seoul Central District Court No. 11963, 2020) / [Grounds for recognition] Gap’s evidence Nos. 2 and 5, and the purport of the whole arguments and arguments.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. On October 7, 2019, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the acquisition of the claim for the refund of the lease deposit from the network D, and sent the notification of the transfer to Nonparty C on October 29, 2019.

The Plaintiff is a legitimate right to pay the instant deposit, and thus, seeks confirmation.

B. In the case of the deposit of the relative non-defluence of the judgment, in order for one of the depositors to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods, there exists a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other depositors to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods or to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods against them. In such a case, seeking the confirmation of the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods against a third party, who is not the consignee, does not have any benefit of confirmation (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da35596, Oct. 23, 2008). The Defendant’s deposit of this case is not the beneficiary of the deposited goods as seen earlier.