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

(b) Articles 208(3)3 (a service by public notice) and 208(3) (b) of the International Civil Procedure Act and Articles 208(3) (a) and 150(3) (a) of the L Civil Procedure Act and Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) (a) of the L Civil Procedure Act;

2. A claim against Defendant A or M;

A. On August 30, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant A, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 19,221,00, KRW 200, KRW 203,430, and KRW 14,600, KRW 149,000, and KRW 149,000, respectively, on July 25, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to lease the real estate specified in attached Table 13 to Defendant M as specified in attached Table 13 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant lease agreements”).

2) At the time of the conclusion of each of the instant lease agreements, the Plaintiff, Defendant A, and M agreed that the lessor may terminate the lease agreement in the event that the lessee fails to pay a monthly rent for at least three consecutive months.

3) Defendant A’s failure to pay a total of KRW 1,454,160 for seven months up to July 2014, and Defendant M’s failure to pay a total of KRW 679,010 for four months up to July 2014. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, evidence No. 1-4, 30, and evidence No. 2-4,30, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff terminated each of the instant lease agreements by serving the copy of the instant complaint on the grounds of the delinquency in rent of Defendant A and M, and thus, Defendant A and M are obligated to deliver each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 13 to the Plaintiff upon the termination of each of the instant lease agreements.

As to this, Defendant A, and M alleged to the purport that the period of payment is postponed as the economic ability to pay rent is not sufficient, but the above assertion by Defendant A and M cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff’s request for surrender. Thus, the above assertion by Defendant A and M is without merit.

3. Conclusion.