2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. Nonparty E (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) was established on June 7, 2005, and Defendant B is working as the representative director of the Nonparty Company from April 2006.

Defendant C is the wife of Defendant B, and Defendant D is its own child.

B. On June 21, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the non-party company on the lease of No. 515 of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F No. 515 (hereinafter “instant officetel”) owned by the Plaintiff to the non-party company.

On June 22, 2005, the non-party company occupied the instant officetel and occupied and used it.

C. However, the non-party company filed a lawsuit against the non-party company, Defendant C, and Defendant D, stating that “The non-party company, the non-party company, the non-party company ordered the instant officetel to order the instant officetel, and Defendant C and D leave the instant officetel,” as the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2012Kadan70495, on the ground that the monthly rent paid exceeded KRW 100,000,000.”

On February 28, 2013, the above court decided to recommend reconciliation that "the plaintiff shall issue the instant officetel to the non-party company until April 30, 2013, and the defendant C and the defendant D shall leave the instant officetel until the above date." The above decision became final and conclusive around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence No. 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Defendants claiming the Plaintiff were obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 51,480,00 (= KRW 1,430,000 】 36 months x 36 months) and delay damages therefrom, as the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant officetel for residential purpose without justifiable authority from April 22, 2010 to May 1, 2013 (around 36 months).

B. First of all, determination;