1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 40,000,000 and interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from December 5, 2019 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 8, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendants on the lease of “E-ho among the Daegu Seo-gu D’s ground housing (hereinafter “the foregoing lease contract”) with the terms that the Plaintiff leases “E-ho,” from the Defendants during the period from September 9, 2017 to September 8, 2019 (hereinafter “the foregoing lease contract”).

On the other hand, the defendants are married couple who are co-owners of the housing and the housing site (one-half shares each).

B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 40,000,000 according to the above lease agreement.

The lease contract was terminated on September 8, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Where co-owners of a building jointly lease a building and receive a deposit for lease, barring any special circumstance, such lease does not lease their own shares, but jointly lease the object of lease as many parties, and the obligation to refund the deposit for lease falls under an indivisible obligation due to its nature;

(2) The Defendants, a joint lessor of the above lease agreement, jointly with the Plaintiff as the lessee, have the obligation to pay the amount of KRW 40,000,000 and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 5, 2019 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the date of service of the complaint filed by the Plaintiff as of December 5, 2019 to the day of full payment.

As to this, Defendant C alleged to the effect that the above lease agreement was concluded by Defendant C as Defendant C was not a party to the above lease agreement. However, Defendant C did not submit a reply or a preparatory document stating that Defendant B was directly served with the complaint on December 4, 2019, and that Defendant C did not dispute the Plaintiff’s assertion until now.