1. The Defendants, at the same time, receive from the Plaintiff heading D 105 in Gyeyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-gu. At the same time, amounting to KRW 37,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the overall purport of the pleadings as set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the plaintiff may be found to have leased Goyang-gu D 105 (hereinafter "the instant real estate") from the defendants on August 29, 201 by August 31, 201, the amount of deposit KRW 37,000,000,000,000. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants terminated, and the defendants are obligated to return deposit KRW 37,00,000 to the plaintiff.

(B) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is not obligated to return the deposit because the lease contract was implicitly renewed pursuant to Article 6 of the Housing Lease Protection Act by one month prior to the expiration of the lease term due to the Plaintiff’s failure to notify of rejection of renewal. However, it is difficult to deem that the lease contract was implicitly renewed on the sole basis that there was no notification of rejection of renewal to one of several lessors. Furthermore, even if the lease contract was explicitly renewed, it is difficult to deem that the lease contract was implicitly renewed on the premise that the copy of the complaint of this case seeking the return of deposit was finally delivered to the Defendants on August 26, 2014, which was later renewed on November 26, 2014. Thus, Defendant B’s assertion is without merit.

The defendants defense that the obligation to return the deposit and the obligation to deliver the leased object should be fulfilled at the same time. Thus, in the event of the termination of the lease, the obligation to return the lease deposit and the obligation to deliver the leased object are in the simultaneous performance relationship. There is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff delivered the real estate of this case to the defendants. Therefore, the defendants' defense is justified, and the plaintiff's assertion on the part