1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to receive apartment units listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff, and simultaneously with the Plaintiff on 135.

On April 20, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with the Defendants on the apartment as indicated in the attached list owned by the Defendants, each of which owns 1/2 shares (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”). From May 31, 201 to May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff paid the above lease deposit to the Defendants, and had resided in the present apartment. Since then, the lease contract of this case was renewed several times, the lease deposit was extended to KRW 135 million, and the lease period was changed to January 18, 2018. The Plaintiff paid the increased lease deposit to the Defendants after the expiration of the lease period, and the lease contract of this case was implicitly renewed after the alteration of the lease period, and the Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the Defendant’s share 1/2 among the apartment of this case, or upon the commencement of the auction procedure, the Plaintiff’s demand for distribution between the parties to this case and the court under No. 2019, Apr. 19, 2019.

Therefore, inasmuch as the instant lease contract as the Plaintiff’s demand for distribution was terminated by lawful termination, the Defendants are obligated to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 135 million to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

The defendants have the defense of simultaneous performance that the lease deposit cannot be refunded until the apartment of this case is delivered.

Unless there exist special circumstances, the duty of the lessee to deliver the leased object after the termination of the lease and the duty of the lessor to return the lease deposit is concurrently performed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da15545, Jul. 10, 198). Therefore, the Defendants are likely to receive the apartment of this case from the Plaintiff.