(a) deliver 142.5 square meters of underground floors among the buildings listed in the attached Form;

B. From October 23, 2018

A. On April 28, 2007, the Plaintiffs: (a) leased the lease deposit of KRW 2 million, monthly rent of KRW 830,000 (excluding value-added tax, KRW 23,000,000; and (b) from May 2, 2007 to May 1, 2009, the lease term of KRW 142.5 square meters on the underground floor (hereinafter “instant store”) among the buildings indicated in the attached Form to the Defendant.

B. Since then, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant continued to renew the instant lease agreement, and renewed the lease agreement again on April 23, 2016 by the end of April 1, 2016, 1,050,000 won (excluding value-added tax) and by April 22, 2018.

C. At the time of May 29, 2018, the Defendant did not pay the rent of KRW 3,480,000.

The Plaintiffs expressed their intent to terminate the instant lease agreement by serving a copy of the complaint on the grounds that the overdue rent exceeds the three-year rent (3,465,000 won), and on June 7, 2018, a copy of the complaint was served on the Defendant.

After that, the Defendant remitted the amount equivalent to the rent or the rent to the Plaintiffs until October 22, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap1-4 evidence (including paper numbers), images, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated according to the Plaintiffs’ declaration of termination on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent.

As such, after the termination of the instant lease contract, the Defendant remitted to the Plaintiffs the overdue loan.

Since the effect of termination is not terminated, the defendant is obligated to deliver the store of this case to the plaintiffs and pay the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of 1,15,000 won per month from October 23, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the above store.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the reasons for the delinquency in rent, such as water leakage of the store in this case and the obstruction of the establishment of the plaintiffs' signboards, are entirely against the plaintiffs, and that five years should be guaranteed under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

However, the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act has already been established from the date of concluding the first lease contract.