1. The Defendants jointly share the Plaintiff’s 1st floor, 119.2 square meters, and 26th commercial buildings of the building D, Nam-gu, Dong-gu, Yandong-gu, Seoul, and 26th commercial buildings.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 20, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a lease deposit with the Defendants: (a) KRW 25,00,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,500,000; (b) from December 20, 2015 to December 20, 2016; and (c) from December 20, 2015 to December 20, 2016, the term of lease of KRW 15,00,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,50,000,000; and (d) from December 20, 2015 to December 20, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a lease deposit with the Defendants for KRW 15,00,00, monthly rent of KRW 50,000,00, and each real estate lease agreement (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. Upon entering into each of the instant lease agreements, the Plaintiff paid KRW 35,000,000 to the Defendants, and agreed to pay KRW 5,000,000 to the remainder of the lease deposit by June 20, 2016, but did not pay KRW 5,00,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since each of the instant lease agreements on the Plaintiff’s assertion expired, the Defendants are obligated to return the lease deposit.

In addition, even though the Defendants were obligated to deliver the instant building in accordance with the instant lease agreement and to make it available to the Plaintiff, but failed to deliver the instant building, thereby failing to perform the Defendants’ obligations under the instant lease agreement.

For this reason, the Plaintiff cancelled the instant lease agreement, and sought payment of KRW 35,000,00,000, equivalent to the lease deposit due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation.

3. Determination

A. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Defendants delivered the instant building to the Plaintiff.

It means the transfer of factual control over the object, and the transfer of this factual control means the physical transfer.