1. The Defendants jointly share the delivery of real estate stated in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff, and 30,000.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 17, 2012, Nonparty deceased F (Death on September 5, 2015) and Defendant C leased real estate indicated in the attached list to Nonparty G (Death on September 3, 2015) from September 23, 2012 to September 22, 2014, the lease term of KRW 30,000,00 as the obligatory lease term.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

Although the instant lease contract was implicitly renewed, G requested the return of the deposit for lease on August 19, 2015, upon notifying the Defendant of the termination of the contract.

C. The Plaintiff, a member of the network G, succeeded to G solely, and the networkF jointly succeeded to Defendant C, a spouse, Defendant D, and E.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the lease contract of this case was terminated on November 19, 2015 after three months from the date of the lessee’s notice of termination, the Defendants jointly have the duty to return the deposit to the Plaintiff. Since the Defendants have the defense of simultaneous performance with the Plaintiff’s obligation to deliver the instant real estate, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff at the same time as the delivery of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff.

3. Although Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant”) asserts that the instant lease agreement was extended by September 22, 2016, by entering into an oral extension contract on August 29, 2014 by the network G on the assertion of Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant”), there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and even if the Defendant’s assertion was true, the extended contract period has already expired, so the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff should compensate for damages equivalent to the restoration cost of 6,810,000 won due to the boiler damage caused by the boiler failure to manage the decedent's house. However, the statement and image of evidence Nos. 1 through 6 alone are found to recognize the defendant's assertion and the amount of damages.