All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the allegations added or emphasized by the Defendants in the trial, and thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. Accordingly, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

(A) The portion to be determined additionally on 2. 2. The lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

A. The Defendants alleged the absence of the Plaintiff’s right of revocation and the absence of negligence in concluding the contract by the Defendants are without any authority to revoke each of the instant lease agreements. ② The Defendants asserted that there was no negligence at the time of the conclusion of each of the instant lease agreements. However, insofar as it is acknowledged that each of the instant lease agreements was terminated, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendants asserted the right to claim damages, since they failed to perform their obligations under each of the instant lease agreements, the Defendants acquired the Plaintiff’s damage claim equivalent to the down payment pursuant to Article 7 of each of the instant lease agreements.

(The defendant asserts that the actual damage is not less than KRW 60 million, which is equivalent to the rent that was not received from May 2018 to February 2019).

On the other hand, even if the Plaintiff’s non-performance of obligation asserted by the Defendants is unclear, it is argued that the Plaintiff did not pay the rent, the lessee’s obligation to pay rent arises under the premise of the delivery of the leased object. However, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants delivered the object of each of the instant lease agreements to the Plaintiff (as stated in the evidence No. 3, it appears that the Plaintiff demanded to change the keys through the licensed real estate agent, but the Defendants did not comply with it), the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay rent arises.