1. The Defendants’ Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s money indicated in the “Lease Deposit” column in the annexed lease specification.
1. Basic facts
A. Inheritance 1 of the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) is a non-party O (hereinafter “the deceased”).
(A) On February 11, 2009, the Defendant’s Intervenor K (hereinafter “K”) (hereinafter “K”) was killed on February 11, 2009.
2) On June 14, 2012, the lower court rendered a judgment against K to divide the inherited property of the instant building, which is the deceased’s inherited property, with the Seoul Family Court Decision 2012Rahap555, and the lower court rendered a judgment on June 14, 2012 by dividing the instant building into the ownership of each of the Plaintiffs 2/9 shares and 3/9 shares, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
B. 1) After the death of the deceased, K leases each of the respective possession parts of the instant building among the instant building to each of the Defendant listed in the “Defendant” column of the attached lease content sheet (part of K leases in the name of the Deceased)
2) Each of the Defendant’s lease agreements was made between K and each of the Defendant with the payment of the respective money indicated in the “Lease Deposit” column in the attached lease agreement (hereinafter “Lease Contract”).
The Defendant’s Intervenor L, M, and N are licensed real estate agents mediating the conclusion of each of the instant lease agreements. (2) After that, each of the lease periods stipulated in each of the instant lease agreements was expired on each of the dates indicated in the separate lease agreement in the separate lease agreement.
C. The Plaintiffs and K, without consultation with the Plaintiffs who are different co-owners, seek the delivery of each possession portion of the instant case as an act of preserving jointly-owned property. The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against K to seek the delivery of each possession portion of the instant case as Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap71614, and won a favorable judgment on October 10, 2013, and the said judgment was dismissed (Seoul High Court 2013Na70899) and the final appeal (Supreme Court 2014Da61319).