At the same time, the Defendant received KRW 350,000,000 from the Plaintiffs:

(a) the annexed list;

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiffs share 1/2 shares of the Yeonsu-gu Incheon apartment E (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and the Defendant is a person who entered into a lease contract with F, the former owner of the instant apartment on September 8, 2015, with the lease deposit of KRW 350 million, and with the lease deposit of KRW 350 million from December 5, 2015 to December 4, 2017.

On November 2, 2017, the Plaintiffs succeeded to the F’s status as a lessor, and concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant to increase the lease deposit amount by KRW 80 million (payment until December 5, 2017) and to enter into a new lease agreement with the period on December 4, 2019.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). However, in the lessor’s column of lease agreement, only Plaintiff A was written.

B. The Defendant did not pay KRW 80 million increased for lease deposit to the Plaintiffs until the date of closing the argument.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy Facts, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Defendant did not fulfill the obligation to pay the deposit, the lease contract is terminated, and the delivery of the apartment of this case and the unpaid deposit are claimed for damages for delay from the date of payment.

B. Defendant 1) The instant lease agreement is null and void because only Plaintiff A’s name that did not have a majority share in the contract, and Plaintiff B’s certificate of personal seal impression, power of delegation, written consent, etc. was not attached. Moreover, as a result of the lack of effective contract, the Defendant renounced the extension of the contract, the instant lease agreement was concluded. Accordingly, even though the Defendant continuously requested the Plaintiffs to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 350 million, it is inevitable for the Plaintiffs to have no return, the Defendant is a resident in the instant apartment. 2) The instant lease agreement was made up, which was null and void as above, and the Defendant did not extend the housing loan (280 million won, annual 3%) and did not extend the period of 45%.