2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On June 9, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the lease of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) with D and C to pay KRW 2,500,000 in advance on the nine day of each month, and entered into a contract on the lease of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”). On August 26, 2013, the Gwangju District Court concluded a settlement with D on August 26, 2013 in cases involving building names of 2013 and 117 buildings, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant settlement,” and the term of lease 1. From June 9, 2013 to June 9, 2015, the term of lease is from June 9, 2015.

2. Deposit for lease shall be 200,000,000 won, and the monthly rent shall be 2,500,000 won; and

3. (Omission)

4. The Plaintiff loses the benefit of life-saving when the Plaintiff was in arrears on three or more occasions each month, and immediately delivers the instant building to D.

B. The Defendants jointly purchased the instant building from D on June 25, 2014, and jointly purchased the instant building from D. Of the instant building, the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the said sale under the name of Defendant B with respect to the 7/10 shares among the instant building, and the 3/10 shares in the name of Defendant C with respect to the 7/10 shares under the name of Defendant C, Gwangju District Court received on August 18, 2014, and succeeded to the status of the lessor of the instant lease from D on August 18, 2014.

C. The Plaintiff paid the monthly rent as indicated below.

(The plaintiff automatically transferred the monthly rent to D around the 21st day of each month, and D seems to have understood this point). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 4-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 2-1, 2, 3, and 4-1, 2-2, Eul evidence No. 2-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lease of this case was three times or more, the compulsory execution based on the protocol of conciliation of this case should not be denied.

B. According to the premise of determination, the Plaintiff was in arrears at three minutes in August 2013, May 2014, and July 21, 2014, and as such, the Plaintiff was at the latest, following the instant reconciliation around July 21, 2014.