1. The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 7, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease on a deposit basis with E. On the same day, the Plaintiff is a person having chonsegwon who completed the registration of the establishment of a lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “the lease on a deposit basis”) from December 7, 2012 to December 6, 2014, with the Seoul Central District Court’s registration date No. 288454, Dec. 7, 2012, with respect to real estate listed in the separate list owned by E.

B. On December 13, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) prepared or issued a contract to transfer the claim for the return of the deposit money to Defendant C; (b) entered into a lease on a deposit basis; and (c) registered the lease on a deposit basis; and (d) notified E of the transfer of the claim on December 17, 2012; and (b) thereafter, the Defendants occupied

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had the Defendants use the said real estate free of charge for the convenience of carrying out the said business when jointly engaging in the entertainment business with Defendant B. However, even if the said free loan contract was terminated on or around June 17, 2013, the Defendants continued to possess the instant real estate in an unlawful manner, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is seeking the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant real estate to the original state following the exercise of the right to claim exclusion of disturbance based on the right to lease on a deposit basis or termination of the loan for use.

B. The defendants' assertion that the defendants are entitled to take over the right to lease on a deposit basis as to the above real estate from the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to complete the additional registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis prior to the instant lease on a deposit basis, and the defendants have a legitimate title to possess the above real estate.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants had the title to occupy the instant real estate only entered into a loan agreement with the Defendants, and the Defendants also entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff.