A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 1/3 share of reinforced concrete building No. 520 of Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul. D, 4, and 29.85 square meters. This is the Plaintiff’s de facto ownership of approximately 11 square meters (store No. 77; hereinafter “instant store”) of the portion inside a ship, which successively connects each point of the attached Table 2, No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the 4 floors of the building listed in the attached Table 1 list, without separately registering the fact that one section of exclusive ownership was divided into several stores, while remodeling the building listed in the attached Table 1 list.

B. On January 5, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate lease agreement with Defendant B to lease the instant store by setting the deposit amount of KRW 4,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 650,000, and the term of existence as of December 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. The Defendants, as married couple, jointly occupied the instant store and operated the business with the trade name “E”.

Defendant B paid only KRW 500,000 to the Plaintiff monthly rent under the instant lease agreement.

The Plaintiff terminated the instant lease contract by filing an application for modification of the number of claimed persons on September 27, 2016. The difference between the sum of KRW 18,200,000 (=650,000 x 28 months) of the monthly rent under the instant lease agreement and the sum of the monthly rent actually paid (=50,000,000 x 28 months) is KRW 4,200,000 (=18,200,000 - 14,000,000,000).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 2 and 3 (including a tentative number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness F's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on the ground of the expiration of the term or the delay in the monthly rent of Defendant B, barring any special circumstance.

Therefore, the defendants are the lessor of the store of this case.