1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs share 1/2 shares each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

B. On September 13, 2016, Plaintiff B leased the attached building status map No. 1, 2, 3, 44, and 69.3 square meters inside the line (hereinafter “instant real estate”) connected each point in sequence 1, among the real estate listed in the attached list, to the Defendant on September 13, 2016, with the lease deposit of KRW 15,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,980,000 (including value-added tax, and payment after the 12th of each month) from September 13, 2016 to September 12, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.

At that time, the Defendant received the instant real estate from the Plaintiffs, and prepared and commenced “D” business.

The defendant did not pay the plaintiff B from October 2016 the rent to the plaintiff, and around that time the car page was suspended.

E. On November 22, 2016, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff B of the password of the entrance of the instant real estate.

F. On May 25, 2017, Plaintiff B sent a text message to the Defendant that the instant lease agreement is terminated on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, which reaches the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 4-1, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Although the instant lease agreement was terminated on May 25, 2017, the Defendant still occupied the instant real estate as it is left alone due to the fact that many facilities and articles installed by the Defendant inside the instant real estate were left unattended. The Defendant used the instant real estate, which is the leased object, without any legal cause, obtained a rent equivalent to the rent, and thereby suffered damage equivalent to the same amount from the Plaintiffs by using it in possession of the instant real estate, which is the leased object.

Accordingly, the defendant sought the delivery of the real estate of this case on the grounds of exclusion of interference based on ownership.