A. On November 3, 2006, the Plaintiffs, both married and married, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant housing on September 20, 2006, with 1/2 shares, respectively.

At the time, the tenant E (24 months of the lease term and July 3, 2007 of the expiration date) had resided in the housing of this case.

B. On November 21, 2006, F, Plaintiff A, and Defendant C made an agreement on November 21, 2006 that “The purchase price of this case shall be KRW 500 million invested by 1/3,000,000,000,0000, excluding KRW 90,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000)”

(hereinafter “instant agreement”). C.

The defendants, who are married with a couple, are residing in E from July 2009 to the housing of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry B in Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs asserted 1) The Plaintiffs are entitled to refund KRW 100 million to Defendant C, instead of paying the lease deposit, and allow the Defendants to use the instant house for one year, and made clear intent of refusing to renew the lease on June 27, 2014. As such, the lease between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants was terminated pursuant to Article 6-2(2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act on September 27, 2014, three months thereafter, and even if not, the said lease was terminated by the delivery of a duplicate of the instant complaint. Thus, the Defendants are obligated to receive KRW 100 million from the Plaintiffs and deliver the instant house to the Plaintiffs (the Plaintiffs are the persons who are obligated to simultaneously perform the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million from the preparatory document on May 21, 2019).

(2) The instant housing is governed by the instant agreement, as alleged by the Defendants.