A. Basic facts 1) On March 10, 2015, the Plaintiffs acquired co-ownership shares in 1/3 shares of each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet on the grounds of sale by compulsory auction. 2) On August 20, 2013, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the new passenger construction company, the owner of the building listed in the separate sheet, and the owner of the building listed in the separate sheet at that time, on August 20, 2013, with regard to the lease deposit of KRW 10 million for the leased deposit of KRW 69 square meters for the portion on the ship (A) connected each point of 1,2, 3, 44, and 1,000 square meters for the leased building, KRW 275,00 for the monthly rent, and the lease period from August 20, 2013 to August 19, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, even if the defendant has opposing power against the plaintiffs who are new owners under the above lease contract, the above lease contract is terminated due to the expiration of the term (On the other hand, according to the evidence No. 3, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant filed a report on the right to a compulsory auction and an application for a demand for distribution on March 17, 2014 in the procedure for compulsory sale by official auction on the building listed in the attached list, and the lease relationship is terminated according to the purport of the Supreme Court Decision 98Da1560 Decided October 27, 1998). The defendant is liable to return the leased object at the same time as the plaintiff redeems the lease deposit

C. Accordingly, the Defendant, upon receiving KRW 10,00,000 from the Plaintiffs, is obligated to deliver to the Plaintiffs the portion (A) 69 square meters on the ship, which connects each point of KRW 1,22, 3, 44, and 1 in sequence, among the 4th 583.26 square meters of buildings listed in the separate sheet, listed in the separate sheet, to the Plaintiffs.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.