2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Plaintiffs are the owners of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

B. On December 30, 201, with the Defendant on December 30, 2011, Plaintiff A: (a) with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 60 million; (b) monthly rent of KRW 33 million; (c) the lease deposit of KRW 30 million; (d) monthly rent of KRW 1650,000; (e) the lease period of KRW 500,000; (e) the lease period of KRW 50,000; and (e) the Plaintiff C, with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 30,000,000; (b) the lease period of KRW 165,000; and (c) the period of lease of KRW 165,000; and (d) the Plaintiffs agreed that the Defendant and the Defendant have not claimed that the premium (facilities, business; and (e) monthly rent of KRW 100,000,000; and (e) the lease contract was concluded every two years.

C. The rent between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant was raised in accordance with the above agreement, and around January 2016, KRW 1,815,000, respectively, in the case of E-9025, 9026, 3.630,000 won, E-9027, and E-9024.

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant did not pay the rent from January 2016 to December 2016. Since the Defendant failed to prove the payment of the rent, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff 4,3560,000 won, and 2,1780,000 won, respectively, to the Plaintiff B and C.

B. The Plaintiffs asserting that the Defendant continues to possess, use, and benefit from the leased object even after the term of lease expires, and thus, they are obligated to pay unjust enrichment from January 1, 2017 to the date when delivery of the leased object is completed. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant occupies, uses, and benefits from the leased object even after the said term of lease expires, and rather, according to the images of the evidence A, the leased object is the purpose of the foregoing.