1. Defendant D is paid KRW 80,000,00 from the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed Party F indicated in the attached list.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 4, 2010, Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and Appointed F (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) from G on October 4, 201 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 5, 201.

B. On November 5, 2010, the Plaintiff, etc. leased the instant building to Dong G with the term “80,000,000 won for lease deposit, and the term of lease from November 5, 2010 to November 5, 2012,” and the said lease agreement was renewed.

C. On July 23, 2012, the deceased G transferred the right to refund the said lease deposit to Defendant D and notified the Plaintiff thereof. The Plaintiff et al. expressed his/her intent to refuse the contract renewal on September 1, 2014.

마. 한편, 피고 B은 망 G으로부터 이 사건 건물 중 별지 도면 표시 ㉠, ㉡, ㉢, ㉣, ㉠의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 (가)부분 11㎡를 전차하여 이를 점유하고 있다.

F. The deceased G died on November 13, 2013, and there was Defendant C, D, and E as its inheritor, and among the above inheritors, Defendant D occupies the instant building.

【Reasons for Recognition: Each entry in the Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Determination:

가. 청구원인에 관하여 (1) 이 사건 임대차계약은 원고 등의 갱신거절의 의사표시에 의하여 2014. 11. 5. 기간만료로 종료되었다고 할 것이므로, 원고 등에게 특별한 사정이 없는 한 피고 D는 이 사건 건물을 인도하고, 피고 B은 이 사건 건물 중 별지 도면 표시 ㉠, ㉡, ㉢, ㉣, ㉠의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 (가)부분 11㎡를 인도할 의무가 있다.

(2) While the Plaintiff et al. sought delivery of the instant building against Defendant C and E, it is not possible to recognize that the said Defendants possessed the instant building, so the Plaintiff et al.’s claim against the said Defendants is without merit.

B. (1) The identity of the claim is maintained even in the case where the claim for return of the lease deposit is transferred.