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

B. Judgment on deeming confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. Determination on the claim against Defendant E, G, and I

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant E, G, and I had a duty to deliver each leased part of the leased part of the 402.38 square meters of 2nd floor, 402.38 square meters of 2nd floor, 402.38 square meters of 2nd floor, and 192.13 square meters of 3rd floor (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Plaintiffs, since the term of the lease agreement concluded with the Plaintiffs expired.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the lease agreement entered into with the Plaintiffs was implicitly renewed, and in particular, Defendant I asserted that Defendant I spent KRW 4,200,000 as necessary, and accordingly, the Plaintiffs added the assertion that “The Defendants and the Defendants agreed to receive each leased part of the instant building from the Defendants by March 2016, respectively during the instant trial.”

B. We examine the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) Gap evidence Nos. 9, 11, and 13 (including additional numbers); and (c) according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiffs paid 17,50,000 won to the above Defendants on or around March 2016 under the pretext of directors’ expenses, removal expenses, etc.; and (c) the Defendants agreed to receive the leased parts of the instant building from the aforementioned Defendants by the end of March 19, 2016; and (d) the plaintiffs paid 17,50,000,000 won for directors’ expenses, etc., and 17,50,000,000 won for rental deposits and 15,000,000 won for rental deposits and 17,50,0000 won for each of the instant buildings to Defendant Eul on May 23, 2016.

C. Therefore, according to the above extradition agreement, the defendants each of the buildings of this case against the plaintiffs.