The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. Defendant B shall make November 2014.

A. On August 31, 2010, the Plaintiff and the remaining designated parties (hereinafter “designated parties”) concluded a lease agreement with regard to real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendants and designated parties (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from August 31, 2010 to August 30, 2015, with regard to the lease term, from August 31, 2010 to August 30, 2015, the deposit amount of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 8.8 million, and the rent payment date as of the last day of each month.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On January 7, 2014, the Defendants paid the difference as follows, such as paying the difference in October 2013.

The fact that appropriation for appropriation for the payment date of rent is made on January 7, 2014, as of August 2013, 2014, as of April 6, 2014, April 12, 2014, as of April 12, 2014, as of September 17, 2014, as of September 17, 2014, June 10, 2014, as of December 14, 2013, as of December 14, 2014, as of July 23, 2014, as of July 2014, as of November 2014, as of July 23, 2014, as of July 15, 2014, as of January 14, 2014, as of January 14, 2014, as of January 14, 2014.

2. Defendant C, who entered into a lease contract of this case with Defendant C on the main safety defense, concluded a partnership with Defendant C, and terminated the partnership relationship, and the name of business registration was changed to Defendant B to the sole name, and terminated the possession of the real estate of this case, and thus, there is no standing to be a party. However, in the case of a request for performance, the Plaintiff is a party-qualified person, and the grounds asserted by Defendant C are to be determined within the merits, and thus, Defendant C’s main

3. The parties' assertion

A. 1) Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim is that the termination of a lease agreement under Article 640 of the Civil Act, unlike the termination of a general contract, does not require the highest procedure of lease (see Supreme Court Decision 62Da496, Oct. 11, 1962; Supreme Court Decision 62Da496, Oct. 11, 1962).