1. The Defendants shall deliver to the Plaintiffs one story of 79.87 square meters among the buildings listed in the attached Table.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners of buildings listed in the attached list, and around May 14, 2016, leased to Defendant C the rental deposit amounting to KRW 20,00,000,000 for the first floor among the buildings listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant store”) and the period from May 14, 2016 to May 13, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

According to the instant lease agreement, Defendant C is operating a restaurant at the instant store along with Defendant D until now.

C. On February 20, 2017, the Plaintiffs notified Defendant C of the refusal to renew the instant lease agreement.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4, 6, Gap evidence 9, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the above findings of the determination on the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was terminated upon the expiration of May 13, 2017, and thus the period of termination has expired. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiffs.

B. (1) The Defendants alleged that they agreed on the renewal or extension of the instant lease agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant C, but there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge it by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

(2) In other words, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the Plaintiffs did not properly negotiate with the new lessee arranged by Defendant C, and that Defendant C lost an opportunity to recover the premium, but even if Defendant C lost an opportunity to recover the premium against the Plaintiffs, it is not possible for the Defendants to refuse to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiffs. (It is difficult to view that the Defendant’s duty to deliver the instant store and the damage claim asserted by Defendant C are in a simultaneous performance relationship).