1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

1. The grounds for the entry of this case by the court of the first instance regarding this case are as follows, except for the addition of the following: “A. Determination of the Defendants’ assertion” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the same shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The added portion argues to the effect that the Plaintiff should not prove that the Plaintiff did not have any substantial benefit with respect to the leased object. However, the lessor should prove that the lessee has gained substantial benefit with respect to the leased object after the termination of the lease contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the different premise is rejected.

In addition, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed prior to the filing of the lawsuit, and the Defendants filed a petition for compulsory execution with the court. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants should pay damages due to illegal possession, as they did not have the right of simultaneous performance.

The settlement prior to the filing of a lawsuit may be established between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on July 18, 2016. However, even after examining the contents of the settlement prior to the filing of a lawsuit, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s modification of the terms of the instant lease agreement to waive the right of simultaneous performance defense by promising the Defendants to perform the duty of delivery of the leased object prior to the termination of the lease, etc., rather than the Defendants’ obligation to return the leased object, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the Plaintiff still holds the right of simultaneous performance as to the obligation to return the lease deposit and the obligation to return the lease deposit to the Defendants. Therefore, the Defendants should complete the performance of the obligation to return the lease deposit in order to claim damages against the Plaintiff due to illegal possession. However, the Defendants prepared the remainder of the lease deposit and subsequently prepared it to the Plaintiff.