1. All of the plaintiffs' primary and conjunctive claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 18, 2014, the Plaintiffs leased KRW 201 (hereinafter “instant building”) of Gwangju City D and E-ground F building 201 (hereinafter “instant building”) with the lease deposit KRW 90,00,000, and the lease term from October 2, 2014 to October 2, 2016, respectively (hereinafter “instant lease”). At that time, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 90,000,000 to the Defendant with the lease deposit.

B. On October 2016, the Plaintiffs requested the Defendant to return the instant lease deposit upon notifying the Defendant of the refusal to renew the instant lease agreement. However, the Defendant was dismissed on the next day, and the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the return of the instant lease deposit.

C. On April 6, 2017, when the instant lawsuit was pending, the Defendant returned the instant lease deposit to the Plaintiffs.

Meanwhile, around February 2017, the Plaintiffs did not return the key to the Defendant while moving into the instant building. On April 6, 2017, the Plaintiffs transferred the key to the Defendant only after receiving the refund of the instant lease deposit from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs asserted that since the defendant delayed the return of the lease deposit of this case, they should compensate the plaintiffs for the damages arising therefrom.

In cases where both parties are jointly performing obligations, even if one party’s obligation becomes due, it shall not be liable for delay even if the other party fails to perform his/her obligation until the other party performs his/her obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da40851, Aug. 22, 1997). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no dispute between the parties that the lease contract of this case expired on October 2, 2016, and the Defendant’s instant lease contract was terminated due to the termination of the lease contract of this case.