1. The part of a judgment in the first instance that claims the payment of money in the principal lawsuit shall be revoked;

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff) from November 1, 2018.

1. The grounds for the admitting this case by the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of part of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance as described in paragraph (2) below, and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(However, Paragraph (3) does not accept the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court, but instead, the phrase “Defendant F”, other than the expressly modified part in Paragraph (2) below, shall be referred to “Defendant F,” both to “Defendant F,” and the phrase “Defendant E,” in the fifth part of the amendment, “Defendant E,” in the third part, shall be referred to as “Defendant E,” “Defendant,” “Defendant,” and “Defendant,” in the fourth part, “Defendant”.

The 5th parallel 11 to 7th parallel 20 pages shall be dried as follows:

A. 1) The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The lease contract of this case was terminated as the defendant's default, and there is no security deposit to be refunded if unpaid monthly rent and late payment charge are deducted. The defendant delivers the real estate of this case to the plaintiff, removes the new building of this case constructed without permission from November 1, 2018, and 8,800,000 won each month due to compensation for damages or return of unjust enrichment from illegal possession from November 1, 2018 to the date of loss of the defendant's possession or loss of the plaintiffs' ownership (the aggregate value of the building of this case and the land of this case) in proportion to the plaintiffs' share ratio of 4,412,409 won (50.1%) (the aggregate value of the building of this case and the land of this case), 4,214,545 won (47.9%) and 173,046 won (1.97%) to the plaintiff C.

2) The Defendant’s assertion that the instant lease agreement was terminated by an implied agreement that it is difficult to maintain the said lease agreement on the same condition as the Plaintiffs refused to pay the reasonable rent reduction due to changes in the economic situation (Article 628 of the Civil Act).

The defendant shall maintain and repair the real estate of this case.