1. The Defendant (Counterclaim) is simultaneously paid KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the provisional number) in this lawsuit, the defendant newly concluded a lease agreement with the defendant on Nov. 21, 2008, setting a deposit amount of KRW 30 million to Nov. 5, 2009, and KRW 1,450,000 for the monthly rent of November 4, 201 (excluding value-added tax), and the above lease agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant was concluded on Nov. 26, 201, which concluded on Nov. 5, 201 and Nov. 15, 201, as the expiration of the lease agreement between the defendant and the defendant, to succeed to the obligation to return the deposit amount of the former owners, and the above lease agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant was concluded on Nov. 21, 2015 and Nov. 15, 2015.

In full view of the above facts, although the defendant is obligated to deliver the store of this case to the plaintiffs according to the termination of the lease, it may refuse to deliver the deposit from the plaintiffs to the time when the deposit is returned in accordance with the simultaneous performance resistance regarding the return of the lease deposit. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the store of this case to the plaintiffs at the same time as receiving the deposit amount of KRW 30 million from the plaintiffs.

On September 9, 2015, the defendant entered into a premium contract in KRW 130,00,000 for the premium of this case with a new lessee D on September 9, 2015, and received KRW 13,000,000 for the down payment on the same day.

On September 14, 2015, the Defendant concluded a premium contract with D on September 9, 2015 and 130,000,000 won by content-certified mail, and the remaining date of payment was set on October 9, 2015. Thus, prior to that, prior to that, the Defendant’s contact with the new lessee on the date and time of delivery, and concluded a lease contract.