1. The Defendants are simultaneously with the delivery of 2 heading 40 square meters out of 61.14 square meters of the 61.14 square meters of real estate as indicated in the attached list from the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The following facts can be acknowledged according to the facts without dispute over recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

(1) On September 29, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Defendants by setting the lease deposit of KRW 30 million with respect to the lease deposit and the lease deposit from October 25, 2008 to October 25, 2010 with respect to the real estate area of KRW 2,40 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among the real estate area of KRW 61.14 square meters as indicated in the attached list, and paid the said lease deposit to the Defendants.

(2) Since then, the above lease agreement was automatically renewed, but the expiration of the period on October 25, 2014 expired. The Defendants did not refund the lease deposit to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was found to have left home on the ground that the Plaintiff did not receive the lease deposit.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, since the lease contract on the real estate of this case was terminated, the defendants are obligated to pay each of 15 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s obligation to return the instant real estate and the Defendants’ obligation to pay the leased deposit are concurrently performed, and the amount of the leased deposit must be deducted from the amount of the unpaid water fee and the amount of damages for the damage caused by the present gate.

B. (1) Determination is based on the relationship between the lessee’s duty to return the leased object and the lessor’s duty to return the leased object arising from the termination of the lease agreement. Thus, unless the lessee has lost the lessor’s right to defense of simultaneous performance by performing the duty to return the leased object or providing lawful performance, the lessor is not liable for the lessee’s delay of the duty to return the leased object.

(B) According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff is against the Defendants on November 27, 2014.