1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2.(a)

Defendant B concerning the real estate stated in the attached list to Defendant C.

The reasons why this court should explain this part of the facts are as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment in addition to the dismissal of the following parts. Therefore, this part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) The second page 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall add “the security deposit for lease on a deposit basis” (hereinafter “instant security deposit”) to “the deposit for lease on a deposit basis”).

(2) On the 2nd written judgment of the first instance, the “right to lease on a deposit basis” (hereinafter “right to lease on a deposit basis”) shall be added to the “right to lease on a deposit basis”).

3. On the second page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase “notarial deeds” (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deeds of this case”) shall be added next to the phrase “notarial deeds.”

On April 14, 201, the fact that the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case was implicitly renewed after the expiration of April 14, 2011 does not conflict between the parties, or is recognized by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions in subparagraphs 1 and 6 and the overall purport of pleadings.

However, if the right to lease on a deposit basis as to a building has been renewed, the duration of the right to lease on a deposit basis shall be deemed not to have been determined, and each party may notify the other party of the extinguishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis at any time, and the right to lease on a deposit basis shall expire six months after the other party received such notification (Articles 312(4) and 313 of the Civil Act). The facts that the assignment order of this case was served and confirmed to the Defendants around May 2013 are as seen earlier. According to the overall purport of the statement and oral argument in subparagraph 6, it is recognized that Defendant C sent to Defendant B a certificate of contents that the right to lease on a deposit basis was terminated on February 26, 2016 and reached Defendant B around that time. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the right to lease on a deposit basis was extinguished at the latest around February 26, 2016.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, Defendant B, upon the instant claim subrogated to Defendant C in order to preserve the entire amount of the deposit, is related to the apartment of this case.