1. At the same time, the Defendant received KRW 20 million from the Plaintiffs, and at the same time, among the buildings listed in the separate sheet.

1. In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5 as to the part of the claim for the delivery of the building, the plaintiffs were co-owners of the building of this case and managed by the plaintiff Eul with the delegation of the plaintiff Eul, the plaintiff Gap entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on April 14, 2004 with respect to the building of this case with a deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.3 million, and the defendant received a deposit of KRW 20 million from the defendant, and delivered the building of this case to the defendant. The lease of this case was renewed on April 14, 2006 and April 14, 2008 (However, the renewed lease contract of this case on April 14, 2008 is 12 months, hereinafter "the lease contract of this case"), and the defendant may, if necessary, be notified to the plaintiff within 20 months prior to the renewal of the lease contract of this case, 203 months prior to the termination of the lease contract of this case.

According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated (the defendant asserts to the effect that the declaration of intention under the above letter is invalid because it is disadvantageous to the defendant who is the lessee. However, in light of the fact that the lease term of this case was commenced on April 14, 2004, it is difficult to deem it invalid, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit), and the defendant is obligated to deliver the store of this case to the plaintiffs.

Since the defendant made a simultaneous performance defense, the defendant paid the plaintiff a deposit of KRW 20 million under the lease contract of this case to the plaintiff, as seen above. Ultimately, the defendant is paid a deposit of KRW 20 million from the plaintiffs.