A. Defendant B is from 10,000,000 to 10,000 real estate listed in the separate sheet from December 1, 2017.

A. On February 18, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between E and the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with a rental deposit of KRW 50,00,000, and the lease period of KRW 12 months. On October 28, 2006, the lease agreement continued to be renewed after the lessee changed to Defendant D. On July 1, 2015, the lessee changed to Defendant B, and entered into a lease agreement between the lessee as KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,815,000, and the lease agreement between the lease period of KRW 12 months. On July 1, 2016, the lease agreement was renewed to the same effect as the lease agreement was extended for one year.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

Defendant C and D, the parent of Defendant B, have actually occupied the instant real estate from February 18, 2005 to the present date, and operated the F with the trade name “F.”

C. On May 12, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the delivery of the instant real estate on June 30, 2017, when the rental period expires. D.

Defendant B paid to the Plaintiff rent up to November 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, Defendant B is obligated to deliver the said real estate to the Plaintiff at the same time, and Defendant C and D are obliged to withdraw from the said real estate the amount of unjust enrichment calculated by deducting the amount equivalent to the rent of KRW 1,815,00,00 from KRW 10,000 to KRW 1,817,000 per month from December 1, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate, barring any special circumstance.

(3) The Defendants’ assertion regarding the Defendants is not accepted, since the Plaintiff was paid the amount equivalent to the rent up to November 2017. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the deduction in excess of the amount is rejected.