1. Defendant (Appointed Party) and Appointed C jointly receive buildings listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts are recognized as either of the facts in dispute between the parties or as a whole together with the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4:

A. On October 24, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) leased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Defendants in proportion to one-half shares from Defendant (Appointed Party) and Appointed (hereinafter “Defendants”); (b) determined the lease deposit amount of KRW 160,00,000; and (c) from November 27, 2015 to November 26, 2017.

B. On October 19, 2017, the Plaintiff renewed the lease deposit amount of KRW 170,000,000 with the Defendants, and the term of lease until November 27, 2019.

C. The Plaintiff notified the Defendant (Appointed Party) of the rejection of renewal one month prior to the expiration of the renewed lease term.

2. According to the allegations and the facts of recognition as above, the lease between the original Defendant with respect to the instant real estate was terminated on November 27, 2019 as the expiration of the lease period. In a case where co-owners of a building jointly lease the building and receive the lease deposit, barring any special circumstance, the joint lessor’s obligation to return the lease deposit constitutes an indivisible obligation by nature (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da43137, Dec. 8, 1998). As requested by the Plaintiff, the Defendants are jointly obligated to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 170,00,000 to the Plaintiff at the same time as the transfer of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff.

For this reason, the Defendants asserted that they are obligated to return only the balance remaining after deducting compensation for damage and unpaid management expenses incurred from damage to the leased object, such as damage of laundry season, etc. However, even if the laundry period installed at the time of lease of the instant real estate was broken, it is doubtful whether it can be viewed as damage caused by the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff. However, according to each of subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the evidence No. 6-1, 2020, the Plaintiff voluntarily bears the expenses and laundry machine.