1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. On the 4th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was written after the dismissal.

subsection (1) of this subsection shall apply with the following modifications:

[A] According to the facts of recognition of Paragraph (1) and Paragraph (1), the instant lease agreement was terminated upon the expiration of the term. Thus, the Defendants, a lessor, are jointly obligated to jointly return KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

(A) The Defendants, in full view of the following: (a) A person who actually received a security deposit and premium, is Defendant D; (b) the Plaintiff prepared a lease agreement with Defendant D prior to the formation of a lease agreement; and (c) the Defendants are married couple, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendants are co-leased of the instant lease agreement. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 19,500,000 remaining after deducting the lease deposit from KRW 30,000,500,000 (= KRW 1,50,000 x 7 months).

(1) The Defendants asserted that unjust enrichment equivalent to rent should be deducted by the completion date of delivery of the instant store. However, inasmuch as there is no assertion as to the fact that the Plaintiff uses and benefits from the instant lease contract even after the expiration date, this part of the allegation cannot be accepted, and the simultaneous performance defense that there is no obligation to return the deposit until the delivery date of the instant store is completed is also a person who was delivered the instant store from the Plaintiff on January 29, 2018, which was after the decision of the first instance court, and therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit). As to this, the Plaintiff’s assertion has discontinued its business from January 2017 to January 2017 due to the police control by the Defendants’ report.