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 190.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 16, 2017, the Plaintiff leased real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) listed in the separate sheet jointly owned by the Defendants from the Defendants, with the lease deposit amounting to KRW 190,00,000, and the lease period from November 10, 2017 to November 9, 2019.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

After the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff paid the Defendants KRW 190,000,000 as lease deposit, and occupied and used the instant real estate.

C. On September 18, 2019, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail to the effect that the Plaintiff would not renew the instant lease agreement to the Defendants, but would request the return of the lease deposit by November 9, 2019.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleading

2. According to the allegations and the facts of the above determination, the Plaintiff’s declaration of refusal to renew the instant lease agreement was sent to the Defendants by content-certified mail on September 18, 2019, and the said content-certified mail was not visible. Therefore, it is presumed that the Defendants reached the Defendants around that time (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da20052, Oct. 27, 200). Accordingly, the instant lease agreement expired on November 9, 2019. The Defendants’ obligation to return the deposit constitutes an indivisible obligation by nature (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da43137, Dec. 8, 1998) and, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 190,000,00 as a deposit deposit, together with the delivery of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the instant lease contract was renewed on March 2019, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. ② The Plaintiff’s registration of the right of lease was made on the instant real estate, and that the deposit can be returned to the Plaintiff. However, the Defendants asserted that the registration of the right of lease can be cancelled.