The defendant, to the plaintiff A, KRW 150,00,00, and KRW 218,00,000 for the plaintiff B, and KRW 227,00,000 for the plaintiff C, and the plaintiff D for 240.

1. Indication of claims: To be as specified in attached Form 1;

2. Grounds for recognition: Judgment without holding any pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. The duty to return the lease deposit of a lessor, if the termination of the lease relationship with the dismissed part (claim for Damages for Delay), is related to the lessor’s duty to return the leased deposit simultaneously with the lessee’s duty to return the leased object, and such effect does not necessarily arise to the claimant who is not liable for the delay of performance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da52657 delivered on December 10, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 97Da54604, 54611 delivered on March 13, 1998, etc.). In light of the above, the health care unit and the plaintiffs sought payment of damages for delay against the defendant as to each of the money as stated in the order against the defendant. However, it is clear that the claims to return the lease deposit due to the termination of the lease contract claimed by the plaintiffs are in the simultaneous performance relationship with the obligations to return the leased property to the defendant. The plaintiffs returned the leased property to the defendant.

In the absence of any assertion as to the fact that the defendant has offered such performance, it cannot be said that the defendant is missing from delay of performance.

Therefore, there is no reason to seek damages for delay in the claim of this case.