1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the plaintiff corresponding to the next order of payment is revoked.

The defendants are the defendants.

The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(4) The Defendants, at the request of the Plaintiff, paid KRW 17,00,00 to H and I, a construction business operator, in lieu of the return of the lease deposit. The Defendants are 15,980,00 won in arrears prior to the termination of the lease deposit (=6,740,000 won out of October 1, 2016) and the purport of the entire pleadings. The Plaintiff acquired the claim for the return of the lease deposit from G with the consent of the Defendants; the Plaintiff removed from the instant building; the lease of this case expired on November 22, 2016; and the unpaid management expenses prior to the termination of the lease; the Defendants paid KRW 7,370,370 in lieu of the return of the lease deposit; the Defendants are 15,980,00 won in arrears prior to the termination of the lease deposit (=600,000 won in arrears; KRW 300,000,000 in total; KRW 3600,000 in total,3000.

As to the claim for unjust enrichment of the construction cost of the Plaintiff’s assertion, “the condition at the time of sale” under Article 6 (hereinafter “instant restitution clause”) of the instant lease agreement refers to the condition at which the Defendants first purchased the instant building from the executor (hereinafter “the condition at the time of initial purchase”). The construction work drawings (Evidence A 7-1) at the time of initial purchase refer to the floor log, ceiling, partitions, and fire-fighting systems, etc. at the time of initial purchase.