1. The Defendants jointly share the delivery of real estate stated in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff and jointly do so to the Plaintiff on 500.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 15, 2017, the Plaintiff leased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from the Defendants, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 500 million and the lease period from June 14, 2017 to June 13, 2019.

(hereinafter referred to as "the instant lease contract"). B.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 500 million to the Defendants, and occupied and used the above apartment on June 14, 2017.

C. On the other hand, around May 10, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants that they did not intend to renew the said lease agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1, 2, 4, and 6 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the intent to refuse the renewal one month prior to the expiration of the above term of lease, and the above term of lease terminated upon the lapse of June 13, 2019, which is the expiration date of the term of lease.

On the other hand, the plaintiff is the person who did not deliver the apartment of this case to the defendants, and is seeking simultaneous performance. The plaintiff is obligated to deliver the above apartment to the defendants, and the lessee's duty to deliver the leased object and the duty to return the lease deposit to the lessor arising from the termination of the lease is related to the simultaneous performance.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay KRW 500 million to the Plaintiff the lease deposit, along with the delivery of the instant apartment from the Plaintiff.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.