1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the preliminary claims added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 10, 2005, Plaintiff B entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant with respect to approximately 140 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of the underground space of the building D in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, which is owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”), with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 220,000,000,000 from May 10, 2005 to May 9, 2008 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The special agreement provides that “The lease agreement shall be arbitrarily terminated at the time of arrears of at least five months in arrears and shall include all facilities. The lessee may not demand the lessor to pay the facility cost and the premium after the completion of the contract period.”

B. On October 9, 2006, while the Plaintiffs, as married couple, operated a restaurant business with the trade name “E” in the instant real estate, the instant real estate was flooded.

C. On July 1, 2007, Plaintiff B reported the closure of the restaurant “E” and the Plaintiffs did not operate any longer from the instant real estate. The Defendant disposed of the Plaintiffs’ goods remaining in the instant real estate on a around 2011, and leased the instant real estate to others.

Plaintiff

A around March 2016, on the ground that the Defendant disposed of the Plaintiffs’ goods in the instant real estate without permission, filed a petition with the Seongbuk Police Station for the charge of larceny, but the Seongbuk Police Station concluded the charge of the crime on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize the charge and there is no ground to prove it.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 evidence, Eul 1, 2, 3 and 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for the refund of lease deposit

A. The gist of the parties' assertion was that the Defendant neglected the management of the instant real estate, and thus, it was impossible for the Plaintiffs to use and benefit from the instant real estate. Therefore, the Defendant is the Plaintiff to pay 20 million won the lease deposit for the instant real estate.