1. The Plaintiff:

A. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for 120,000,000 won and the aforementioned amount from March 11, 2019 to September 17, 2020.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 31, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B on the use of bathing facilities of this case, which was determined as KRW 30,000,000, and the contract term from January 31, 2019 to December 24, 2019 with respect to the instant bathing rooms located in Suwon-gu D (hereinafter “instant bathing rooms”), and the contract on the use of bathing facilities of this case, which was determined as KRW 100,000,000,000, and as from February 11, 2019 to December 24, 2019.

B. On February 12, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the use of bathing facilities in the instant case with Defendant C on a deposit of KRW 30,000,000, and the contract period of the said contract from January 31, 2019 to 24 months, as to the instant bathing facilities, and on the instant bathing facilities, the contract period of KRW 100,000 and the period of the said contract from February 12, 2019 to 24 months.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). At the time of the said agreement, a special agreement was made to the effect that “the establishment of F building G in Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si at the same time.”

C. On January 31, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,000,000 among the deposit for the instant bath room and the deposit for the tax credit, and KRW 20,000,000 among the deposit for the tax credit, and KRW 70,000,000 of the deposit for the instant bath bath on February 12, 2019.

The instant bath was planned to open the bath around February 12, 2019, but did not open the bath until the date of closing the argument.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-5, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the above determination as to the claim for the refund of lease deposit, it is recognized that the Defendants breached the duty of delivery under the instant lease agreement.

The Plaintiff asserted that the instant lease agreement was terminated on March 10, 2019 on the grounds of the Defendants’ nonperformance of the duty of delivery, but there is no evidence to acknowledge such termination.

However, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to cancel the instant lease contract by serving a duplicate of the complaint on the grounds of nonperformance of the duty of delivery, and the duplicate of the complaint in this case.