1. Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B with respect to the share of 3/5.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 18, 198, D, the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) concluded a lease contract with E with regard to the instant real estate on a deposit basis, 10 million won for lease on a deposit basis, 51m2 of the residential Dong, 1989, 51m2 of the residential area, 1989, 20 October 20, 1989, 1989, 20 October 20, 198, and 51m21 of the return date, and completed the lease contract with the Seoul Southern District Court as Seoul Southern District Court’s registration office on November 28, 198 (hereinafter “registration of lease on a deposit basis”).

B. On May 25, 201, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s future due to gift on the instant real estate.

C. On June 14, 1996, E died, and the Defendants (Defendant B3/5, Defendant C2/5) succeeded to E’s property.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. According to the above facts, the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case was extinguished on October 20, 1989 due to the expiration of the term (the Defendants asserted that the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case was renewed legally and continued to exist until June 14, 1996 when E died. However, if the whole purport of the pleadings is added to the statement in Gap evidence 2, E can be acknowledged the fact that he transferred the domicile on April 2, 1989 at the domicile of this case. In light of these circumstances, Eul transferred the real estate at the time of the transfer of the resident registration address or the expiration of the term of the right to lease on a deposit basis, so the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case cannot be deemed to have been legally renewed as alleged by the Defendants). The Defendants, the heir of the Plaintiff, the owner of the real estate of this case, are liable to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis of inheritance.

B. The Defendants receive reimbursement of deposit money from the Plaintiff.