2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On September 3, 2014, the Defendant acquired the ownership of 2,184 square meters in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu and its ground, and directly operated the instant Moel since around that time.

B. On March 3, 2017, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) and the Defendant selling 4.30 square meters of the instant Moel and Daegu Dong-gu G Do-dong-gu G Do-gu 860 square meters to F, and 4.69 square meters of the sales price for KRW 7.95 billion of the sales price (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On May 8, 2017, F completed the registration of ownership transfer in its future with respect to the instant Moel and miscellaneous land.

C. On May 8, 2017, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with F and the Defendant on two parcels, including the instant telecom, KRW 1.5 billion in deposit, KRW 42 billion in monthly rent (including value-added tax, and KRW 8,000 in advance on May 8, 2017), and the term of lease from May 8, 2017 to May 7, 202, and continued to operate the instant telecom.

On May 27, 2017, the Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement with F and the Plaintiffs to lease KRW 87,00,000,000 (including value-added tax, advance payment on the first day of each month), and from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 202 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with a deposit of KRW 1.5 billion, monthly rent of KRW 43,00,000,00 (including value-added tax, advance payment on the first day of each month), out of KRW 860,00 square meters in the instant Moel and Daegu Dong-gu G Do, Daegu-gu, Do, and operated the instant Moel from that time upon delivery of the instant real estate on July 3, 2017.

E. 1) On September 5, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against F claiming the termination of the instant lease agreement, refund of deposit for lease, etc. on the ground that “the monthly sales of the instant cartel, defects in the instant cartel facility, and removal order, etc. for part of the parking lot” ( Daegu District Court Decision 2017Gahap206803, hereinafter “related lawsuit”).