1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's defendants who correspond to the above revocation part.

1. According to the facts below’s determination as to the cause of the claim, the obligation to return the lease deposit by a joint lessor constitutes an indivisible obligation in its nature and barring any special circumstance, the Defendants, a joint lessor, are jointly obligated to jointly return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff, the transferee of the claim to return the lease deposit.

The plaintiff is a reconstruction association established for the purpose of removing the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government A commercial building and officetel building (hereinafter referred to as the "A") and constructing new commercial buildings and officetels.

B. On September 15, 2009, the Defendants concluded a lease agreement with D and lease deposit of KRW 15,000,000 for the instant store, monthly rent of KRW 1,400,000 for the instant store (excluding value-added tax) and from October 1, 2009 for the term of lease to 24 months from October 1, 2009 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. On October 15, 2009, D paid KRW 15,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant lease deposit”) to the Defendants under the instant lease agreement.

D and E’s subsidiaries received the instant store and operated an indoor golf practice range at the same time, and continuously occupied and used the said store through implied renewal even after the lease term expires.

On the other hand, on August 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for conciliation against the Defendants, F, etc. for the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure with the Seoul Central District Court 2013ss.50752.

On November 8, 2013, the lower court rendered a decision in lieu of the conciliation of the content that the Defendants shall carry out the procedures for ownership transfer registration of the instant store at the same time with the Plaintiff’s payment of the purchase price, and the decision in lieu of the said conciliation became final and conclusive around that time.

E. On December 20, 2013, after the Plaintiff deposited the sales amount with the Defendants as deposited, the Plaintiff adjusted the instant store.