1. Defendant D shall deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff on 7,107.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 17, 2014, the Plaintiff leased to Defendant C real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as a deposit of KRW 10 million and monthly rent of KRW 900,000,000 (excluding value-added tax).

Article 2(2) of the Special Agreement on Lease provides that "A lessor may terminate this contract in the event that the management expenses are not paid twice or more in arrears."

(hereinafter referred to as the "Lease of this case")

On November 29, 2015, Defendant C lent the instant real estate to Defendant D with a deposit of KRW 10 million, and a rent of KRW 900,000.

At the time of the sublease, Defendant C did not obtain the consent or consent of the lessor.

C. Of the management expenses imposed on the instant real estate, KRW 9,107,762 (including delayed payments) was overdue from June 2017 to July 2018. However, Defendant D paid the management office of the E Council, which is the controlled entity of the instant real estate, the management office of the instant real estate.

On the other hand, on August 31, 2018, the E Council brought an action against the Plaintiff to pay the management expenses imposed on the instant real estate (Seocheon District Court 2018da63095).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement on the grounds that Defendant C had failed to pay the management expenses twice or more, and sought overdue payment against the Defendants, and sought delivery of the instant real estate against Defendant D who occupied the instant real estate.

B. Judgment by deeming the confession of claim against Defendant C (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

C. (i) In the case of sub-leases without the consent of the lessor, the sub-lessee cannot claim his rights against the lessor.

Therefore, the defendant D occupies the real estate of this case without any title.