1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Presumed factual basis

A. around December 2012, the Defendants began to construct a Class II neighborhood living facility building with three floors of reinforced concrete structure (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and obtained approval for use on December 5, 2012.

B. On June 28, 2012, before the completion of the instant building, the Plaintiff leased the instant building from the Defendants KRW 200,000,000, KRW 20,000 per month of rent (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), and from October 15, 2012 to October 14, 2017, the Plaintiff changed the rent from January 2015 to KRW 18,00,000 per month.

On October 11, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendants set the period of KRW 17,00,000 per month and October 30, 2019, when concluding a lease agreement again.

(hereinafter “the lease of this case”). C.

On May 28, 2018, the Plaintiff and Defendant B concluded a compromise prior to the filing of the claim stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “reconciliation of this case”).

2. Defendant B may terminate the instant lease agreement in the event that the Plaintiff falls under any of the following:

(d) Where the payment of monthly rent is in arrears not less than three times;

3. When the instant lease contract is terminated or terminated, the Plaintiff restores the leased object to its original state and orders the Defendant B to do so.

On May 1, 2019, the Defendants notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant lease agreement and claimed delivery of the instant building on the grounds of arrears at least three times in the monthly rent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants’ request for delivery of the building cannot be complied with under the instant protocol of conciliation on the grounds that the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion was followed, and sought the exclusion of the enforcement force of the said protocol of conciliation.

The Plaintiff’s assertion that the termination right does not occur. The Defendants exempted the Defendants from the January 2019.

In addition, the plaintiff did not use three floors of the water leakage of the building of this case, and therefore rent.