1. The plaintiff's appeal and the independent party's claim are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 21, 2012, A entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 22,604,00 (total sum of basic and converted lease deposit) with respect to the apartment apartment located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D.

B. After that, around January 15, 2013, A prepared a testamentary document stating that “A shall succeed to the claim for the lease deposit after the death of the donee” under Article 2013 subparag. 22 of the F Deed by a notary public (hereinafter “instant will”), and at the time, the Plaintiff (the Intervenor’s children) and G (the Intervenor’s mother) participated as a witness of the instant will, and the executor of the will was designated by the Plaintiff.

C. On the other hand, A died, and four children (H, I, J, and K) are co-inheritors of the network A.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through 5 (including partial number), Eul's evidence 1, 2, Byung's evidence 1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the instant will was made to the effect that the Intervenor succeeds to the claim for the lease deposit by means of a testamentary document; and (b) as long as A does not have any specific active property other than the above lease deposit claim, it constitutes a universal testamentary gift against the Intervenor.

Therefore, as long as A dies, the defendant should refund the above lease deposit to the plaintiff who is the deceased's executor.

B. As alleged by the Intervenor, the Intervenor received an inherited property comprehensively, including the claim for the lease deposit against the Defendant of the deceased, as the content of the Intervenor’s argument, and the Defendant must refund the lease deposit to the Intervenor, if the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

C. The defendant's argument that the will of this case is disqualified for witness, as the plaintiff and G, who are the relatives of the intervenor who are disqualified for witness, have participated as witness, the validity of the will can be recognized.