The defendants are listed in the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the buildings indicated in the attached Form 1.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 23, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B, setting the lease term of KRW 2,2,3,4, and 29.25 square meters on the ship (hereinafter “instant store”) that connects each point of the attached table Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the buildings listed in the attached table to Defendant B, by setting the lease term of KRW 2 years, lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million, and monthly rent of KRW 200,000.

B. The above lease was renewed several times thereafter, and lastly, on March 24, 2019, the lease term was extended by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 450,000 until March 24, 2020.

(hereinafter “The lease of this case” is stipulated as the special terms of the instant lease agreement that “a lessee shall deliver the store of this case to the lessor without any separate peremptory notice when it is inevitable for the lessee to clarify due to sale, public projects, redevelopment projects, etc. during the lease period.”

C. On May 18, 2019, the Plaintiff sold the Daegu Northern-gu D land in which the instant store was located to E and one other.

The Defendants are running restaurant business at the store of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1 to 8, Gap evidence 4-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of recognition under paragraph (1) above, since the lease term of this case expires, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendants’ assertion is examined in the lower court.

1. First of all, the Defendants asserted that, although they want to hold a director because they did not know of funeral at the store of this case, they were unable to respond to the Plaintiff’s assertion because they lost the opportunity to recover premiums at the shop of this case as they continued to perform funeral services at the Plaintiff’s request, they suffered considerable damages on the premium.

The plaintiff interfered with the defendants' opportunity to recover the premium and caused damage to the defendants.