1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 41,508,252 with respect to the Plaintiff, and the period from June 9, 2017 to August 22, 2017.

1. Basic facts

가. 원고는 2013. 12. 중순경 ① 전주시 덕진구 C아파트 D호(이하 편의상 ‘이 사건 아파트’라고 한다)의 당시 소유자이던 피고 A, 이 사건 아파트에 입주하려는 피고 B과 별지에 나오는 <전세임대주택 전세계약서(☞ 갑 2; 이하 편의상 ‘이 사건 임대차계약’이라고 한다)>를 함께 만들면서, ② 피고 B과 별도의 전대차계약서(☞ 갑 3)도 따로 만들었는데, 그 무렵 피고 B은 원고에게 ‘원고가 피고 A으로부터 임대차보증금을 돌려받을 때까지 이 사건 아파트에 실제 거주하고 주민등록을 유지하여 주택임대차보호법이 정한 대항력을 반드시 갖추되, 만약 그 의무사항을 이행하지 않아 발생하는 모든 손해에 대하여 책임질 것을 서약’하는 내용 등이 담긴 <입주자 의무사항 준수서약 각서(☞ 갑 4)>도 따로 만들어 건넸다.

B. Under the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,275,00,000 to Defendant A, among the lease deposit for the instant apartment. Defendant B notified Defendant A of his/her intention to terminate the instant lease agreement even on February 22, 2016, and completed the move-in report for resident registration to another place on February 22, 2016, the Plaintiff was unable to receive at least 4,2750,000 won out of the lease deposit for the instant apartment from the Defendant A at around that time, even though he/she transferred the instant apartment and completed the move-in report for resident registration to the other place. However, the Plaintiff was only refunded KRW 1,00,000 on May 11, 2017 and on June 8, 2017, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute between the parties, or the entries in Gap 1-6, 7-1, and 7-2, and the purport of the witness E's testimony and the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on both arguments

A. Considering the above facts comprehensively, the Plaintiff provided most support for Defendant B despite the termination of the lease agreement on the apartment of this case.