1. At the same time, the delivery of D Apartment 106, 1202 from the Plaintiff was made by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant B was the Plaintiff, and the Defendant B was the Plaintiff on 104.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B owns 8/15 shares of D apartment 106 dong 1202 (hereinafter “instant housing”) in Suwon-si, and Defendant C owns 6/15 shares, respectively.

B. On November 4, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement between the Defendants and the instant housing amounting to KRW 185,000,000, and the lease period from December 12, 2014 to December 11, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.

On the other hand, on September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 154,000,000, and paid KRW 16,000,000 on the same day as the down payment. The Plaintiff agreed to pay the remainder on December 16, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On September 2016, the Defendants asserted that the contract was renewed under the condition that the lease deposit should be increased by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff rejected the contract. The term of the instant lease contract expired.

Meanwhile, while concluding the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants that deposit should be returned at the time of termination of the said contract, along with the fact of the said sales contract.

However, as the Defendants did not refund the lease deposit at the time of the termination of the contract, the Plaintiff was unable to pay the remainder of the contract and thereby incurred loss of the contract deposit confiscated.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to return the deposit to the Plaintiff and compensate for damages equivalent to the down payment according to the share of the instant housing.

B. As long as the Plaintiff asserted by the Defendants did not perform the Defendants’ obligation to deliver the instant house in the simultaneous performance relationship with the Defendants’ obligation to return the deposit, the Defendants are not liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages due to nonperformance of the obligation to return the deposit and the obligation

(c).