1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of premise;

A. On October 1, 2008, the Plaintiffs leased part of the branch floors of the Gangnam-gu Seoul building B from the Defendant and operated a restaurant business.

After that, the Defendant terminated the lease contract with the payment of the rent of the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs delivered the leased building to the Defendant on January 10, 2013.

B. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs seeking reimbursement of damages equivalent to the cost of restoring the building leased as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Da346151 (Counterclaim against the Plaintiff’s claim objection lawsuit).

On July 11, 2013, the above court recognized the Defendant’s damage claim 147,052,556 won (refloat cost and value-added tax) for the Defendant’s further cases, and KRW 24,681,979 (refit cost and value-added tax) for the Plaintiff’s damage claim for the Plaintiff’s further cases, but rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s claim by accepting the Plaintiffs’ claim for the return of the lease deposit against the Defendant as the automatic claim.

The above judgment was finalized on August 8, 2013.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 3, 4, and Eul 1

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted that the cost of restoring the leased building related to the above claim for damages against the Plaintiffs is necessary and accepted, and exempted the Plaintiffs from the obligation to return the deposit amount equivalent to the same amount.

However, the defendants do not restore leased buildings to their original state, and allow them to lease and use the facilities installed by the plaintiffs again.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return it to the plaintiffs because it made unjust enrichment equivalent to the above restitution cost.

B. As to the fact that the plaintiffs bear the costs necessary for restoring the leased building to the defendant and the liability for damages equivalent to the value added, the above final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect, the plaintiffs' assertion against this is greater.