1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant is modified as follows.

The defendant shall list the plaintiffs in attached Form.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs leased the buildings listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant as “security deposit: 20,000,000 won [2,00,000 won on the day of the contract (payment on the day of the contract), any balance of 18,00,000 won], monthly rent: 2,00,000 won (2,000 won on January 1, 200: from February 1, 209 to September 30, 2019; 2:2:00,000 won on September 30, 209; and Article 4 (Termination of Contracts): The Defendant may cancel the said lease contract, etc.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Plaintiffs issued the instant building to the Defendant pursuant to the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant was engaged in restaurant business with the trade name “E” in the instant building as stipulated in the said lease agreement.

However, the defendant did not pay the plaintiffs the lease deposit (including the contract deposit) under the above lease contract, and did not pay the lease deposit at all.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the plaintiffs terminated the lease contract of this case as a duplicate of the complaint of this case on the grounds of the defendant's three or more years of delay of rent, the defendant must order the plaintiffs to order the building of this case and pay them in arrears.

B. Even after the termination of the instant lease contract, the Defendant still occupies and uses the instant building.

Therefore, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by applying the rate of KRW 2,00,000 per month, which is the amount equivalent to the rent, from the date of completion of the name of the instant building.

C. Even if the Defendant did not actually use or benefit from the instant building and thus did not constitute unjust enrichment, the instant contract was terminated as the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation.