(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment based on the recommendation of confession based on recognition (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. According to the facts that there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1-2 and Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, and the whole pleadings, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant C on May 29, 2017, setting a deposit of KRW 15 million for the real estate listed in attached Table Nos. 2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), monthly rent of KRW 110,000 (including value-added tax), from May 30, 2017 to May 29, 2022, the term of lease was from May 30, 2017 to May 29, 2012; Defendant C paid the instant real estate rent of KRW 15 million; Defendant C did not pay any subsequent rent; Plaintiff’s purport of the claim that the termination of the said lease agreement was terminated on the grounds of arrears of more than three years; and Defendant C’s application for modification of the cause of the claim from the foregoing real estate to the present date.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the above lease contract was terminated due to the delay in rent for at least three years pursuant to Article 10-8 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, which was served on July 9, 2018 by the Plaintiff’s application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim to Defendant C.

(A) The Plaintiff asserted that the above lease contract was terminated upon Defendant C’s amendment to the form of the instant real estate without the Plaintiff’s consent. However, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant C did not make a determination as to the aforementioned conjunctive assertion, as long as it acknowledged the primary assertion that the above lease contract was terminated due to the delayed payment of rent for more than three years.