1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) 30,500,000 won and its corresponding;

1. Basic facts

A. On August 30, 2015, the Plaintiffs owned 1/2 shares of the instant real estate, respectively, leased the instant real estate to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit amounting to KRW 50 million, KRW 4 million per month of rent (payment in advance from January 30, 2016), and the lease term from October 30, 2015 to October 30, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement,” and “A” No. 1 written by Plaintiff A as a lessor, and although Plaintiff B’s agent was written, the fact that the lessor is the Plaintiffs is not clearly disputed by the Defendant).

The Plaintiffs delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant on October 30, 2015.

C. By December 15, 2016, the Defendant paid a total of KRW 23 million to the Plaintiffs on a rent, and thereafter, paid a rent thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the facts based on the termination of the instant lease agreement, the instant lease agreement was terminated on October 31, 2017, which indicated the intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of rent delay for at least two years.

B. As to the claim for extradition, the plaintiffs delivered the instant real estate to the defendant in accordance with the instant lease agreement. Since the instant lease agreement was terminated, the defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the plaintiffs.

(B) The Defendant’s statement Nos. 3, 5, and 6 alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant delivered the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the amount of KRW 50 million should be returned from the Plaintiffs.

In this case, the plaintiffs agreed to recognize that the defendant received the lease deposit without paying the lease deposit, and accordingly, the fact that the defendant did not have the lease deposit actually received from the defendant is the plaintiffs.