1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 12,487,740 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from October 14, 2017 to July 24, 2018.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5, 11 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers), and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 9, and 10, together with the whole purport of the pleadings.

On May 28, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendants stipulating that “The term of lease shall be KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,900,000, monthly rent of KRW 50,000” (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018, the Defendants paid the said deposit to the Defendants.

B. The Plaintiff sent a mobile phone text message to Defendant B, on August 2017, while operating the car page with the trade name of “F”, to the effect that “I will reflect that the business was discontinued due to the repair of the instant store and return the deposit money to the Plaintiff because I could no longer conduct the business in a damp and portable environment without the interior repair of the main body.” The Defendant B sent a mobile phone text message to the effect that “I will return the deposit money to the Plaintiff,” and that “I will reflect that the business was discontinued due to the repair of the water tank and return the deposit money to the Plaintiff.”

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff again sent a mobile phone text message to Defendant B to the effect that “In spite of the fact that the Plaintiff could not properly conduct business due to the defect in the building occurring in time, no fundamental problem was resolved, and that the Plaintiff could no longer perform funeral as far as the customers are far away from malodor and bedle, and thus, the Plaintiff could no longer perform funeral. In addition, the Plaintiff sent a mobile phone text message to the effect that the Plaintiff would claim for the payment of the rent in arrears and the payment for the prevention of scopic damage.” However, if the Plaintiff did not find an agreement, the Defendant B would have to do so by law.