1. At the same time, the defendant delivered real estate stated in the separate sheet from the plaintiffs to the plaintiffs, respectively, 73,500.

1. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the reasons for the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the provisional number), it can be acknowledged that the plaintiffs entered into a lease deposit agreement with the defendant on September 20, 2016 on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") with the defendant and the attached sheet (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") with the lease deposit amount of KRW 147,00,000, and the lease agreement on September 29, 2018 (hereinafter "the contract of this case") and that the plaintiffs paid a sum of KRW 147,00,000 to the defendant as the lease deposit around that time.

[In relation to this case, the defendant alleged that D, the wife, was liable to pay D the obligation to return the lease deposit because D, but the evidence that D had concluded the contract of this case was not withdrawn from the lawsuit of this case, and even if D, it was true that D had concluded the contract of this case without the right of representation, if the defendant acquired on September 23, 2016 the ownership of the real estate of this case against the plaintiffs who moved into the real estate of this case thereafter, did not deny the validity of the contract of this case, and if considering the circumstances that the lease deposit was deposited into the passbook in the name of the defendant, etc., it is reasonable to deem that D confirmed the act of unauthorized Agency, the defendant's above argument is not accepted. The fact that the lease deposit was terminated under the contract of this case is apparent in fact, and as such, the defendant delivered the real estate of this case from the plaintiffs, at the same time, has the obligation to return it to the plaintiffs.

2. The defendant's assertion that the defendant has a duty to return to the plaintiffs, such as a more string, four-person table, living room decoration, shock wave, etc., and if the above duty is not performed properly, the defendant has a duty to return only the remainder after deducting the amount of loss from the lease deposit.

However, the legal principles asserted by the defendant are reasonable, but it is reasonable to do so.