The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph 1.

1. The grounds for appeal by the Defendants cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations made by the Defendants in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment by the court of first instance are deemed legitimate even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance was added

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for adding "judgments on the grounds of appeal by the Defendants" to the following 2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants

A. The Defendants asserted to the effect that “The Plaintiff was unable to receive the lease deposit from E even if the Plaintiff’s claim of this case was accepted, and the said lease deposit should be distributed to Defendant B through division of property between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, so there is no need to preserve the said lease deposit claim.”

However, as long as the existence of the claim to return the lease deposit against the Plaintiff E, which is the preserved claim entitled to exercise the subrogation right of this case, is recognized as the existence of the claim to return the lease deposit upon termination of the instant lease contract between the Plaintiff and E, barring any special circumstance, the preservation of such claim is not required (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4253, 4260, Apr. 25, 1989). The circumstances alleged by the Defendants (the provisional attachment order was made regarding the claim to return the lease deposit, and the deposit must be distributed to Defendant B) are sufficiently and sufficiently resolved in separate proceedings and there is no direct relation with the need to preserve the said claim. Therefore, the above preservation is not necessary on the ground that there is such circumstance.