1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning for this case by the court of first instance as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for a determination as to the part emphasized by the Defendants in the trial, as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants received 20,000,000 each from the Plaintiff on October 22, 2018 is merely the expense for the surrender of the instant letter of intent (Evidence A 3), not the lease deposit.

Therefore, the Defendants’ performance of the obligation to deliver items (A), (b), and (c) (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”) to the Plaintiff ought to be performed simultaneously with the Plaintiff’s performance of the obligation to pay KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendants.

B. In full view of the following circumstances as to whether the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,000,00 to the Defendants on October 22, 2018 constitutes a lease deposit or a life-sustaining expense, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,000,00 to the Defendants on October 22, 2018 as part of the lease deposit, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective descriptions of the evidence No. 3, No. 6, and No. 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each of the instant buildings at the same time with the payment of KRW 20,000,000 from the Plaintiff for each of the remaining lease deposits.

① Examining the content of the letter of promise of this case (Evidence A 3), the Defendants promised to deliver each of the instant buildings at an early stage between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, stating that “A person was aware of the agreed terms and conditions with the lessor as the present lessee with respect to the indication of the instant indicated real estate, and received the return of the contract for the pre-existingd real estate prior to the expiration of the contract term, and, accordingly, ordered the return of the contract for the pre-existingd real estate, without any terms and conditions, by October 31, 2018.” Then, the Defendants promised to deliver each of the instant buildings to the Plaintiff.