1. Defendant C and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) D jointly with the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) :

(a) the ground floor of the building listed in the annex sheet;

【Claim for Main Office】

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 18, 2017, the Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant C, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million with respect to the 167.17 square meters on the land floor among the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant store”), KRW 1.5 million per month of rent (in addition, 30,000 won per month), and the period from September 30, 2017 to September 20, 2019.

B. Defendant D, with the consent of Defendant C, borrowed KRW 20 million from Defendant C with the consent of Defendant C, and claimed as a substantial lessee that the instant lease contract was made in Defendant C’s name.

Until the date of closing argument, the building of this case is occupied and used.

C. Around June 27, 2018, the Plaintiffs sent a notice to the Defendants that the instant store was transferred to Defendant D without permission, and that Defendant C did not pay for three months or longer, and that the instant lease contract was terminated and delivered to the original state. The notice sent to Defendant C on July 2, 2018 and the Defendant D on June 28, 2018 respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, since the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated and terminated on July 2, 2018, Defendant C is a tenant, Defendant D is jointly and severally as a tenant, Defendant D delivers the instant store to the Plaintiffs. From July 2, 2018 to July 2, 2018, it is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 1650,000 per month (including value-added tax) from July 2, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the instant store.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims for the principal lawsuit are reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

1. Basic facts

A. The building listed in the separate sheet was jointly owned by six Plaintiffs, non-party E, etc. on August 18, 2017, and the Plaintiffs purchased the remaining co-owners’ share of ownership on September 2017.