1. In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part requesting the cancellation of the registration of chonsegwon against the defendant shall be modified as follows:

1. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant and the co-defendant C and D of the first instance trial to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, and to pay the unpaid rent and appraisal cost to the instant store until August 2015, and to comply with the registration procedure for cancellation of the instant lease on a deposit basis.

The court of first instance rejected the claim for appraisal costs among the instant lawsuit, dismissed all the claims against Co-Defendant C and D in the first instance trial, dismissed all the claims against the Defendant, and accepted part of the claim for the cancellation of the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis, while the Plaintiff partly accepted the claim for the cancellation of the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis with the Defendant B in the simultaneous performance of the obligation to pay the unpaid lease deposit amount to the Defendant B.

On the other hand, only the defendant appealed and only the defendant is dissatisfied with the existence of the obligation to cancel the registration of chonsegwon and the amount of the unpaid lease deposit recognized by the court of first instance as simultaneous implementation. Therefore, in the trial of the party, it is examined about the existence of the obligation to cancel the registration of chonsegwon and the scope of the plaintiff's obligation to return the lease deposit against the defendant B.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 29, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of real estate listed in the separate sheet through a voluntary auction.

B. On July 1, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on the lease deposit of KRW 50,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,750,000 (payment on July 30, 200, written in the contract, and written in KRW 2,50,000) and the lease contract with the period from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

C. On July 1, 2012, the Defendant paid a lease deposit to the Plaintiff, and operated a scamba upon delivery of the instant store from that time.

The lease contract of this case is stipulated as follows.

The lessor recognizes all the premium or facility costs, etc. for the leased object.