1. The defendant shall deliver the building stated in the attached list from the plaintiff to the plaintiff at the same time 85,00,000 won to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 16, 2012, the Plaintiff leased E Apartment F (attached Form list, hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) located in D at Yangju-si from C during the lease period of KRW 85,00,000, and the lease period from September 19, 2012 to September 18, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Plaintiff paid C the down payment of KRW 8,500,000 on the date of entering into the instant lease agreement. On September 19, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 76,500,000 for the remainder of the lease deposit. Since the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed, the period was extended until September 18, 2016.

C. C died on November 12, 2013, and the Defendant and G, H, I, J, and K inherited C (hereinafter “C”)’s property (hereinafter “the deceased”)’s heir, other than the Defendant, including G, etc.

On March 22, 2016 and May 10, 2016, the Plaintiff revealed that he/she did not intend to renew the instant lease agreement. At the same time when the term of the instant lease expires, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of the content requesting the return of the lease deposit to the deceased’s domicile, respectively. On June 15, 2016, the Plaintiff sent the certificate of the said content to G, etc.

E. On March 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against G et al., a joint heir of the deceased, claiming the return of the lease deposit (the District Court Decision 2016Da26990), and the court rendered a favorable judgment on March 10, 2017. The judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, and described in Gap's evidence 1 through 3 (including paper numbers)

2. Where co-owners of a building determined on the ground of claim jointly lease a building and receive a security deposit, such lease does not lend each co-owned share, and is jointly leased the object of lease as a large number of parties, barring any special circumstance, and the obligation to return the security deposit constitutes an indivisible obligation by nature.

(Supreme Court Decision 98Da43137 delivered on December 8, 1998). The lessor is the same as the instant case.