1. The defendant shall pay 298,820 won to the plaintiffs.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit;

The summary of the case is the case where the plaintiffs bear interest on the funds borrowed in order to prepare new apartment bonds for the creation of the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the lease of the new apartment that has not been occupied and incurred losses of KRW 12,363,000 by paying the management fee for the new apartment house that has not been occupied, and the defendant instead paid

In fact, on August 27, 2010, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant concluded a lease contract with the Defendant for the deposit KRW 450 million and the period from October 4, 2010 to October 3, 2012 regarding the transfer of KRW 1302 to D apartment owned by the Defendant.

The plaintiffs paid the above deposit and resided in the delivery of the subject matter of the lease on a deposit basis, and completed the registration of establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis on October 5, 2010.

On August 6, 2012, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant concluded a renewal contract by increasing the deposit amount to KRW 500 million with respect to the subject matter of the preceding lease and extending the contract period to October 2, 2014.

Upon the termination of the lease contract, the Plaintiffs refused to renew the lease contract to the Defendant on May 2014. On June 28, 2014, the Plaintiffs leased the F apartment 102 Dong 1801, Seoul Mapo-gu, Seoul, to move in from September 12, 2014, and paid a deposit of KRW 620 million.

The Defendant refused to return the deposit amount of KRW 500 million on the ground that he was unable to make a new tenant of the subject matter of the previous lease even after the contract period stipulated in the re-contract expired, the Plaintiffs continued to reside in the subject matter of the previous lease, while the Plaintiffs provisionally attached the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu 103 Dong 105, 200, the claimed amount of KRW 66,200 on October 22, 2014.

(Seoul Central District Court 2014Kadan810789). The plaintiffs such as the return of deposit, etc. delivered the object of deposit to the defendant on November 17, 2014, and moved to a new object of lease.

The plaintiffs and the plaintiffs.