1. The plaintiffs' appeals and the claims extended in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: Gap evidence No. 10 and Gap evidence No. 11-1 and No. 11-2 are insufficient to recognize the plaintiffs' assertion, except for the rejection of additional evidence No. 10 and No. 11-2, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiffs (excluding the part concerning the lease deposit for G land and building

2. The conclusion of the first instance judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claim on the ground that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone cannot be deemed to have proved that the Plaintiffs alleged that “the Defendant would withdraw the lease deposit of KRW 200 million and refuse to return it while keeping the lease deposit separately” is justifiable, and thus, the lower court’s conclusion that the Plaintiffs’ appeal and the claim extended in the appellate trial (the interest rate for delay damages) is dismissed as all are without merit.