1. The Defendants jointly pay KRW 70,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remainder against the defendants.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 1, the following facts: (a) the lease term expires on May 30, 2016 between the plaintiff, a tenant, and the defendant, a joint tenant, with respect to the church building located in Asan City D; and (b) the lease deposit that the plaintiff paid to the defendants was 70,000,000, may be acknowledged; and (c) the Defendants jointly and severally are liable to refund the above lease deposit KRW 70,000 to the plaintiff.

(1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s joint payment against the Defendants was sought, but the joint lessor’s obligation to refund the lease deposit is indivisible, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is rejected, and there is no evidence to support the fact that the Plaintiff has returned the leased object to the Defendants, and thus there is no damages for delay.) The Defendants asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff should deduct the total amount of KRW 6,90,943 from the lease deposit to be refunded.

However, since the Defendants did not submit any evidence to acknowledge the existence of the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the above money, the Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted.

(On the other hand, the defendants merely asserted that the compensation for delay against the security deposit cannot be paid without the delivery of the leased object, and they did not simultaneously make a simultaneous performance objection to the purport that the security deposit cannot be paid unless the leased object is delivered or redeemed until the delivery is delivered, and as such, the defendants' claim may be made in favor of the defendants, and as such, the defendants did not specify the possibility of delivery and repayment of the leased object. Thus, the defendants' claim against the defendants is dismissed as seen above, since there is no way to give prior notice of the defendants' claim.