2. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff on January 2016.

A. On October 24, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant EAC (hereinafter “Defendant EAC”) on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) with the Plaintiff as KRW 20,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,500,000 (excluding value-added tax), setting the lease period from November 1, 2014 to October 31, 2016, and Defendant A moved from Defendant EAC on March 7, 2016, and Defendant B acquired each of the instant real estate while conducting business with its head office.

B. Defendant E.C. was in arrears from August 2015 to October, 2015, and Defendant E.S. did not pay the difference from March 2016.

Accordingly, on July 20, 2017, the Plaintiff sent the notice that the instant lease contract will be terminated on the ground of the rent delay to Defendant SAE.

C. The Plaintiff’s obligation to return KRW 20,000,000 as lease deposit does not exist if the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the unpaid car by August 6, 2016 is deducted from the unpaid car.

The Plaintiff seeks the delivery of each of the instant real estate to the Defendants who possess each of the instant real estate even though the lease agreement was terminated as above, and the payment of the unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 3,850,000 from August 6, 2016.

2. Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act and the main sentence of Article 257 (1) of the same Act: