1. The Defendants from the Plaintiffs to the delivery of each real estate listed in the separate sheet from September 1, 2018 to September 1, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

(1) The land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) is owned by Plaintiff B, and the building listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) is owned by Plaintiff A.

She. On October 31, 2012, the Plaintiffs leased the instant land and buildings to the Defendants by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 200,000, and the lease period from October 31, 2012 to October 31, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”). Article 2(1) of the Act provides that the Defendants shall not pay monthly rent to the Plaintiff after October 31, 2012.

B. According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case terminated upon the expiration of the term.

As a result, the defendants delivered the land of this case to the plaintiff Eul and the building of this case to the plaintiff Eul respectively, and the defendants jointly have a duty to return to the plaintiffs the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent and the rent from October 31, 2012 to the plaintiffs.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted management expenses and damages, as the Defendants managed the instant land and buildings during the period of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 24,00,000 to the Defendants as management expenses, and the Plaintiffs paid KRW 24,00,000 to the Defendants. Since the Plaintiffs distributed false information on the sections operated by the instant land and buildings, they were unable to properly operate the Section and suffered damages equivalent to KRW 8,000,000, such as air conditioners and chills, which were in the instant land and buildings, due to which damage was damaged, they cannot comply with the Plaintiffs’ request for extradition before paying the above management expenses and damages.

In this regard, there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendants' assertion.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

B. The Defendants’ defense of simultaneous performance did not delay the Plaintiffs’ lease deposit against the Defendants.