1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff (However, Defendant B is within the scope of the property inherited from the network D (E)).

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as indicated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the plaintiff entered into a lease contract with D on September 1, 2015, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 90,00,000 (hereinafter "instant lease contract") until August 23, 2017, and paid KRW 90,000,000 of the lease deposit around that time. D died on March 5, 2016 and succeeded to the deceased D's property (However, G, who is the deceased D's children, was tried to waive inheritance by Hongsung branch of the Daejeon District Court 2016Ra153, Apr. 15, 2016, and Defendant B refused to renew the lease contract (Seoul District Court 2016, Apr. 21, 2016).

2. According to the above facts, since the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the term, the defendants who jointly succeed to the obligation to return the lease deposit of the deceased D are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff KRW 90 million of the lease deposit of this case. However, the defendant B, who was subject to the inheritance limited recognition judgment, is liable within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased D.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is justified, and the claim against the defendant B is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.