1. The Defendants: (a) each of the 7,500,000 won to each of the designated parties; and (b) Defendant B from April 13, 2016 to Defendant C.

1. The following facts of the recognition are not in dispute between the parties, or may be admitted in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5 (including each number, if any).

On September 1, 1997, the network D entered into a contract with Defendant B for the lease of 56 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “one-story part”) on the first floor among the E-ground houses (hereinafter referred to as “instant housing”) in permanent residence owned by Defendant B (hereinafter referred to as “instant housing”) with Defendant B for a fixed term of 30 million won as the lease deposit and 2 years as the lease term; hereinafter referred to as “the instant lease agreement”).

On the same day, Defendant B paid KRW 30 million for the lease deposit of this case.

B. On September 1, 1997, the network D made a move-in report with the instant housing lot number, and occupied and used the part of the first floor from September 1, 1997 to December 15, 2013.

C. Defendant C purchased 1/2 of the instant housing from Defendant B on April 2, 1998, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 4, 1998.

On December 5, 2013, the network D died after having left the designated parties who are their children.

E. On December 5, 2013, the designated parties notified the Defendants of the termination of the instant lease agreement and demanded the return of the lease deposit.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the network D acquired the opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act on September 2, 1997, which is the following day after the network D acquired the above opposing power as above, and Defendant C succeeded to the lessor’s status under the Housing Lease Protection Act by acquiring the 1/2 shares of the instant housing from Defendant B on May 4, 1998, after the network D acquired the above opposing power, and the Defendants were in the position of the joint lessor against the network D.

On the other hand, the lease contract of this case is implicitly renewed after the termination of the lease term, and the designated parties, who are successors, after the death of the network D, are the defendants.