1. The Defendants simultaneously receive real estate stated in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff, and at the same time, KRW 90,859,977 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 5, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B and Defendant D, each of whom owned 1/2 shares, with respect to the instant apartment, KRW 130 million (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On January 14, 2015, the procedure for commencing a compulsory auction (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) was commenced on January 14, 2015 with respect to 1/2 of the shares of the instant apartment.

C. Defendant C was awarded 1/2 of D’s share at the instant auction procedure, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for 1/2 of the instant apartment on October 13, 2015 on the ground of sale by compulsory auction on October 13, 2015.

Meanwhile, in the instant auction procedure, the Plaintiff demanded a distribution of deposit of KRW 130 million as the lessee with the fixed date, but the date when the fixed date was granted was distributed to KRW 29,140,023 on January 26, 2015 by receiving equal dividends with the creditor of provisional seizure, etc.

E. Since then, Defendant B paid KRW 10 million out of the deposit to the Plaintiff.

F. On April 13, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the move-in report on the instant apartment on April 13, 2012, and is currently residing until now.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant B: The fact that there is no dispute between Defendant C and Defendant C by public notice, Gap's evidence, Eul's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Defendant C’s right to claim the return of deposit before the merits was proved to the effect that the Plaintiff’s right to claim the return of deposit was not a party to Defendant C, and thus, Defendant C’s right to claim the return of deposit was proved to the effect that the Plaintiff’s right to claim the return of deposit was not a party to Defendant C. Thus, Defendant C’s right to claim the payment should be proved through the deliberation of the merits.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The purport of the parties’ assertion is that Defendant B attended the meeting to receive the remainder of the apartment bond of this case from the standpoint of the lessor and other lessor agents.