1. The defendant is paid KRW 240,000,000 from the plaintiffs, and at the same time he is paid to the plaintiffs.

1. Evidence No. 1, A2, A3, A5, A6, B-2, and B-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. On May 27, 2013, the lease agreement between E and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the condition that the instant apartment is leased to the Defendant by setting the deposit amount of KRW 240 million with respect to the 421 Dong-gu D apartment Nos. 1306 of Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and the period from August 5, 2013 to August 5, 2015.

(2) The Defendant paid KRW 20 million to E on July 15, 2013, and KRW 220 million on July 31, 2013.

(3) On August 5, 2013, E transferred the instant apartment to the Defendant.

B. On May 21, 2015, Plaintiff B notified the Defendant of the refusal to renew the lease.

C. The Plaintiffs E-property inheritance died on September 13, 2015.

Plaintiff

A is the wife of E, and the plaintiff B is the person of E.

(The Plaintiff acquired the original F or U.S. citizenship, and the husband’s gender was changed depending on her husband’s gender. The Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant apartment on December 18, 2015 due to inheritance.

2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment of this court

A. (1) Since the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) notified the Plaintiff’s refusal to renew the lease on behalf of E, the lease was terminated upon the expiration of the lease period.

(2) The plaintiff B was not entitled to act on behalf of the defendant, and even if the right to enter into a lease agreement does not affect the notification of rejection of renewal, the plaintiff B's refusal to renew the lease agreement is not effective, and since the plaintiffs did not notify the renewal refusal before the expiration of the lease, the lease was renewed with the same content as the former lease.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the judgment of this court Gap, Gap-5, Gap-8, Eul-1, Eul-2, and Eul-3, the mediation was made on May 27, 2013, which concluded a lease agreement with Eul and the defendant, to proceed with the lease agreement with the plaintiff Eul-B, not Eul.