1. The part of the claim for the lease deposit added at the trial shall be dismissed;

2.The judgment of the first instance is as follows:

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the purchase and sale of apartment units as of December 22, 2006, No. 602, Oct. 2006.

B. The defendant made a move-in report on March 4, 2008 on the apartment of 602 apartment, and has been residing from that time to that time.

C. From 1980 to 1, 2014, the Plaintiff’s mother was in de facto marital relationship with C from 7 years of age to 7 years of age, but the relationship was now disappeared.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In the trial of the judgment on the main claim for the lease deposit, the Plaintiff leased the apartment owned by the Defendant in KRW 1806,000,000,000,000 for the lease deposit. Since the above lease contract was terminated, the Defendant asserts that the said apartment should be delivered from the Plaintiff and that the amount of KRW 120,000,000 should be refunded to the Plaintiff at the same time.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the initial claim for the delivery of the apartment of 602 apartment and the claim for the lease deposit against the apartment of 1806 added in the trial is unlawful, since the claim is not deemed to have the identity of the basis between the claims.

On the other hand, the plaintiff's existing claim is seeking to deliver the real estate to the defendant on the premise that the ownership of the apartment house No. 602 was owned by the plaintiff, and the claim for the additional lease deposit in the trial is sought on the premise that the apartment house No. 1806 was leased by the defendant, and the above claim is merely a case where there is a difference in the resolution method in the same living facts or the dispute over the same economic interest, and it cannot be deemed that the above claim is a case where the basis of the claim is identical, and it does not constitute a case where most of the previous litigation data can be used at the hearing of

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for deposit is unlawful.

3...