1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the claims selected by this court are dismissed.

2. Appeal;

1. Basic facts

A. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. In the second half of the second half of the judgment of the court of first instance, “E” is considered as “E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”, which is separate from the Defendant Company that took over the status of the divided D Co., Ltd. in the lawsuit.”

Each "E (E)" of the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance court shall be each "E", and each "Defendant" shall be each "D Co., Ltd.".

"The purpose of lease" is to "the leased object" in the second 11th stm of the judgment of the first instance.

The term "G (State)" in the 3th sentence of the judgment of the first instance court shall be "G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "G"), and the term "I and J" in the 2nd sentence shall be respectively dismissed as "Lho and M.".

In the judgment of the court of first instance, "The rent, management fee, etc. to be deducted from the lease deposit was settled," and the remaining lease deposit was refunded from the plaintiffs on October 1, 2018."

During the fourth 1st judgment of the first instance court, "No. 1-1 through 3, and 5 of the A" shall be deemed "No. 1 through 3, 5, 6, and 15 of the A (including the branch numbers for which the number is available)".

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs asserted N Co., Ltd. (the Defendant Co., Ltd. taking over the status of the above company, and the above company also notified the Plaintiffs that they did not intend to renew each of the instant lease agreement for convenience. The Plaintiffs provided the Plaintiffs with a performance of the obligation to return the deposit in relation to the simultaneous performance of the obligation to return the leased object of the Defendant Company, thereby extinguishing the Defendant Company’s simultaneous performance defense right.

Nevertheless, the Defendant Company returned each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs even after March 31, 2018 when each of the instant lease agreements expired.