1.The part of the Plaintiff’s claim for late payment damages against Defendant E shall be dismissed.

2. Defendant D is attached Form 1.3 to Defendant E.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground of appeal No. 2 is stated in the separate sheet No. 2

2. In order to be lawful in a lawsuit for future performance with respect to future claims or conditional claims that may arise in the future in the part rejecting part of the judgment (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act against Defendant E), the legal and de facto relationship, which serves as the basis of the occurrence of the claim, exists at the time of the closing of argument, and such situation is anticipated to continue, and the claim is required in advance.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu4902, 4919, Nov. 11, 1997; 2000Da37517, Jun. 14, 2002). Defendant E’s obligation to refund a lease deposit does not have any delay in performance in relation to the obligation to deliver real estate as stated in Defendant D’s attached Form 1, and even if Defendant E filed a lawsuit seeking payment for future claims, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone does not need to claim in advance damages for delay for the lease deposit to be returned by Defendant E.

Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for delay damages against Defendant E is unlawful and thus dismissed.

The facts stated in the Attached Form 2 concerning the cause of the claim shall be acknowledged by adding the evidence and the whole purport of the pleadings submitted by the plaintiff, which have no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, Defendant E has the duty to pay the Plaintiff KRW 3 million deposit at the same time with the delivery of the real estate listed in attached Table 1 from Defendant D.

3. As to Defendant E’s assertion, Defendant E asserts that, although Defendant D did not pay the rent from September 2018, Defendant D would not pay the rent, Defendant D would maintain the lease agreement with Defendant D until the lease deposit is due.

According to the evidence No. 1-6, it is recognized that the lease contract between the Defendants on the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 1 has been terminated on March 12, 2019, and the above assertion by Defendant E is above.