1. The defendants jointly indicate 1, 2, 3, 4, 1 of the attached Form 2 among the first floor of the building listed in the attached Table 1 list from the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 7, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (including the following special agreement; hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”) stipulating that the portion of the building connected to each point of Annex 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 in the attached Table 2, among the first floor of the building listed in Annex D and Annex 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), KRW 50 million, monthly rent (excluding value-added tax and management expenses), and between December 7, 2012 and December 7, 2014, the lease agreement (including the lease agreement: hereinafter referred to as “E”) was concluded to the effect that: (a) the lease agreement was entered into between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff (including the following special agreement; hereinafter referred to as “the lease agreement”).

Article 15 Special Agreement

3. When the contract is terminated or terminated, it shall be immediately restored to its original state and ordered, and “B” (the Plaintiff refers to the Plaintiff) shall not claim for premium, etc. against “A” (the Plaintiff refers to D).

B. On August 14, 2013, the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer (shares: 1/2) on the instant real estate on July 9, 2013.

【Reasons for Recognition】 The descriptions of evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, since the term of the instant lease agreement expired, the Defendants, who succeeded to the lessor’s status, jointly with the Plaintiff, are obligated to pay the Plaintiff deposit amounting to KRW 50 million at the same time as the instant building was delivered from the Plaintiff. 2) As to this, the Defendants asserted that the instant lease agreement was terminated due to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay a rent after August 14, 2013, and as a result, the said deposit was appropriated for the overdue rent, and thus, the said claim for the deposit is unreasonable.

According to the evidence No. 10, the Defendants filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from March 15, 2015, on the ground as above, the Daegu District Court 2013da60866, namely, the delivery of the instant building and the rent from March 15, 2015. However, the said court filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the said ground.