A. A. The real estate indicated in the separate sheet is handed over to Plaintiff A, and the real estate was handed over from November 10, 2018.

A. Plaintiff A is the owner of the first real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “first real estate”), and Plaintiff B is the owner of the second real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “second real estate”).

B. From December 1, 2014, to May 31, 2016, Plaintiff A entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease term of KRW 3,673,41, monthly rent of KRW 341,775 (Additional tax), and Plaintiff B entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease term of KRW 1,290,323, monthly rent of KRW 297,675 (Additional tax); and Plaintiff B entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on December 1, 2014 to May 31, 2016.

C. On March 9, 2016, the Plaintiffs sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that each of the above lease agreements is terminated, and the above content certification reached the Defendant around that time.

Since November 10, 2018, unjust gains equivalent to the rent from the rent from the rent from the rent or the unjust gains equivalent to the rent from the rent from the rent from the rent of the first real estate after November 10, 2018 are 456,966 won (including surtax) and the unjust gains equivalent to the rent from the rent from the second real estate are 398,015 won (including surtax).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 4, and 5 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above recognition, each of the above lease agreements between the plaintiffs and the defendant was terminated due to the expiration of the period of validity.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the first real estate to the plaintiff A, and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 456,966 per month from November 10, 2018 to the delivery of the above real estate (including surtax, the defendant's use of each of the above real estate constitutes the supply of services subject to taxation, and since each of the above lease agreements entered into by the defendant who is the lessee to bear the surtax, the defendant shall bear the value-added tax on the rent equivalent). The plaintiff B is obligated to pay unjust enrichment.