1. The defendant's delivery of Nos. 1306 of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F building 201 Dong 1306 from the plaintiffs, respectively, to the plaintiff A and B.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. On April 21, 2015, the deceased G entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant with the term of 201 Dong 1306 (hereinafter “instant building”) with the term of 42,890,000, and with the term of 30 April 30, 2017, the lease deposit was paid. 2) The deceased died on August 24, 2016, and the deceased Plaintiff A, B, and Dong H (Plaintiff C and children, both of whom are South and North, and E) succeeded to the deceased G.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of the above recognition, since the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the termination period, the defendant is obligated to refund the lease deposit to the plaintiff Gap and Eul, who is the heir of the network G (=42,890,000 won x 1/3, less than won x 1/3, but less than won ; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff C 6,127,142 won (=42,890,000 won x 1/3 x 3/7 x 3/7), respectively, the plaintiff D and E (=4,084,761 won x 42,890,000 won x 1/3 x 2/7).

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's defense of simultaneous performance is to the purport that the plaintiffs cannot respond to the plaintiffs' requests until the building of this case is delivered from the plaintiffs.

On the other hand, as seen above, the plaintiffs are obligated to deliver the building of this case to the defendant, who is the lessor, since the lease contract of this case was terminated, and the above obligation to deliver the building of this case is related to the repayment of the above obligation to return the lease deposit. Thus, the defendant's defense

B. The defendant asserts that he is obligated to return the remainder after deducting all debts, such as management expenses, incurred in relation to the lease from the lease deposit until he delivers the building of this case. However, there is no specific assertion or proof as to the above obligation of the defendant's assertion, and the above assertion is without merit.

C. Accordingly, according to the theory of lawsuit, the defendant's delivery of the building of this case from the plaintiffs and at the same time, the plaintiff A and B are each 14.