A. The Defendants are listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the three floors of real estate listed in the separate sheet.

A. The Plaintiff and F are owners of 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On March 15, 2018, the Plaintiff delegated the right of lease, etc. from F, and leased to Defendant B, on March 14, 2018, approximately KRW 99.2 square meters of the portion E in the instant real estate (hereinafter “the instant building portion”) in the attached sheet among the three floors of the instant real estate (hereinafter “the instant building portion”), which is linked in sequence with each point of 1,2,3,4, and 1,000 square meters in the attached sheet, and KRW 1,100,000 in the monthly rent (including value-added tax) and the rental period from March 15, 2018 to March 14, 2019.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

Defendant B did not pay rent from July 15, 2018, and sublet the instant building portion to Defendant C Co., Ltd and Defendant D, and the said Defendants occupied and used it.

C. The Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant lease agreement by delivering a copy of the complaint of this case on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not pay any rent to Defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the instant lease agreement was terminated on January 25, 2019, including the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, which includes the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on the grounds of delinquency in rent of Defendant B. Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant building portion to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B is obligated to pay the rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 1,100,000 per month from July 15, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the said building portion.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.