Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “The Defendant occupied the instant real estate as the father’s husband and wife, and died on October 24, 2015; Defendant C, other than Defendant C, was the sole inheritor and taken over the litigation procedure against Defendant B as the sole inheritor at the wind to waive all inheritance against Defendant B; and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment, except for the conjunctive claim added by the Defendants in the trial, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Defendants asserted that, in light of the fact that the net B used the instant real estate while paying the sale price and the management fee, etc., and that the net D, the nominal owner on the registry of the instant real estate did not demand an explanation until the death, the agreement was concluded to use and profit from the instant real estate after the net B paid the sale price in lieu of the payment of the lease deposit, and thus, the Defendants cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s duty of delivery until the amount of KRW 233,756,00, which is the lease deposit, is paid by the Plaintiff.
However, it is difficult to view that a lease contract was concluded between the network B and the network D solely on the grounds alleged by the Defendants, and there is no other evidence to support that a lease contract for the instant real estate was concluded between the network B and the network D. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion based on such premise is without merit without further review.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and all appeals by the defendants are dismissed.