1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 65,000,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from February 19, 2019 to April 1, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 7, 2011, the Plaintiff leased the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building E (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Defendants from the Defendants as the deposit amount of KRW 53,000,000, and the term of lease of KRW 24 months from February 19, 201.

B. On February 19, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement between the Defendants and the Defendants to increase the deposit to KRW 65,000,000, and to extend the lease period to KRW 24 months from February 19, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant lease”) C.

The Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the intent to refuse the contract renewal one month prior to the expiration of the term of the lease of this case, and delivered the instant real estate to the Defendants upon the director around March 6, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiff the deposit amount of KRW 65,000,000 and delay damages therefor, unless there are special circumstances.

[Plaintiff is seeking joint and several payment to the Defendants, but where several persons jointly rent out and receive security deposit, the obligation to return security deposit is an indivisible obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da43137, Dec. 8, 1998).

B. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants paid KRW 65,00,000 to the Seoul Southern District Court 2019Kadan2088 (No. 2019Kadan201288) that the Plaintiff filed against the Defendants by piracy deposit.

However, the deposit money for release from provisional seizure is substituted for the target property of provisional seizure, and the deposit money for release from provisional seizure is not deposited for the repayment of debts, so the debtor of provisional seizure cannot claim the extinguishment of the obligation due to the deposit for release from provisional seizure.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the Defendants jointly share KRW 65,000,000 to the Plaintiff.