1. The Defendants jointly pay KRW 35,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining parts against the defendants.

1. On June 3, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendants on June 3, 2013, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 3.5 million with respect to the leased house 201 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, and the term of lease from July 10, 2013 to July 9, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); the Plaintiff paid the said contract deposit amount of KRW 3.5 million to the Defendants on the date of the said contract; the payment of the remainder KRW 3.1.5 million to the Defendants on June 28, 2013 may be recognized without dispute between the parties; it is apparent that the said lease agreement was terminated by adding the overall purport of pleadings to the Plaintiff; and since the lease deposit obligation of a joint lessor is indivisible in light of the nature, the Defendants, barring any special circumstance, are jointly obligated to return the said deposit to the Plaintiff.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants are obligated to pay damages for delay at 20% per annum pursuant to the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day after the date of delivery of the complaint to the day of full payment with respect to the above 3.5 million won, and therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay at 3.5 million won per annum.

Therefore, in order to extinguish a lessor's right to defense of simultaneous performance and to recognize a lessor's obligation to delay the refund of the deposit, the lessee must provide the lessor with an explanation of the leased object.

Therefore, the plaintiff did not assert or prove that the plaintiff delivered the real estate of this case to the defendants or provided the performance of delivery (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da77697, Feb. 26, 2002). Thus, the plaintiff's assertion about the above delay damages is without merit.

2. Determination as to the defendants' defense

A. The Defendants’ defense that the Defendant’s status as lessor was automatically succeeded to Nonparty E is July 19, 2013.