1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is, (1) from Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant A.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except when adding or adding to, the following is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The following shall be added at the sixth 18-round end of the judgment of the court of first instance:

Defendant E’s assertion that each of the above lease agreements was null and void because Defendant E abused the right of representation in entering into each of the above lease agreements, and the Plaintiffs knew or could have known that each of the above lease agreements was null and void. However, Defendant E’s testimony by witness Q of the first instance court cannot be deemed to have known or could have known the abuse of the right of representation by Defendant H, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Furthermore, Defendant E’s assertion is without merit, inasmuch as there was no fact that Defendant E received the lease deposit from the Plaintiffs, it is impossible to comply with the Plaintiffs’ claim for refund of the deposit, but the legal act performed by the agent on his behalf is deemed to have been effective. However, the fact that the Plaintiffs paid the lease deposit to Defendant H, who represented Defendant E, is identical as seen earlier. Accordingly, the payment of each of the lease deposit is effective against Defendant E, which is the principal, and therefore, Defendant E’s assertion is without merit.

Defendant E’s simultaneous performance defense with the delivery of each of the above buildings. Thus, in the lease contract, the lease deposit guarantees the rent, etc. arising from the lease to the time the lessee actually returns the object after the termination of the lease. In this case, the delivery obligation of each of the above buildings and the obligation to return the balance of the deposit amount deducted as above are in the simultaneous performance relationship.

However, the plaintiffs are seeking the return of the deposit and the delivery of each of the above buildings, and the plaintiffs' lease contract will be followed.