1. The part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, following a claim for a counterclaim that has been changed in exchange at the court of first instance.

The plaintiff to be tried by the court of first instance requested the same judgment as that of the purport of the claim in the main lawsuit, and the court of first instance rendered the same judgment as that of the main lawsuit, but dismissed the part of the claim in the main lawsuit 2).

Accordingly, the part concerning the claim of the main claim, which was dismissed by the court of first instance, is excluded from the subject matter of a trial. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the cited part of the main claim and the part concerning the counterclaim that was modified in the trial of the party is subject to a trial. The judgment on the claim of the main claim of this case (citing the judgment of the court of first instance) is related to the judgment on the claim related to the basic facts and the main claim of the main claim of this case among the reasons that the court should explain concerning this case is identical to the judgment on the claim of the first instance among the part concerning the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance and the “ judgment on the claim of the main claim of the second instance,” and thus, it is identical to the judgment on the claim of the main

Judgment on the counterclaim claim

A. 1) The defendant's assertion as to the primary claim is 1) The transfer of the right to request the return of the lease deposit under the name of the lessee or the right to request the return of the lease deposit is the common property of the deceased E and the defendant.

A lessor D changed the name of a lessee on the ground that the Plaintiff paid a repayment on behalf of the Plaintiff due to the network E, but the Plaintiff did not have repaid the network E, and thus, the change in the name of the lessee and the transfer of the lease deposit claims accordingly are null and void due to the nonperformance of the terms and conditions.

In other words, the above lease deposit amount of KRW 15,500,000, which is half of the deposit amount of KRW 31 million, is the original property of the defendant and still the defendant has the right.

15,500,000 won for the remainder lease deposit shall constitute the inherited property of the deceased E, and 5,166,66 won equivalent to 1/3 of the defendant's shares in inheritance shall be reverted to the defendant.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s 20,666,666 out of the deposit of KRW 31 million returned from lessor D = 15,50,000 won 5,166.