1. The Defendants jointly share the Plaintiffs with respect to KRW 7,342,560 and KRW 2,420,000 among each of the above amounts.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 16, 2018, the Plaintiffs concluded a lease agreement with the Defendants on the 138.54 square meters of the 1st floor among the buildings listed in the attached Table list (hereinafter “instant building”) as follows:

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). Deposit: 4,00,000 won in monthly rent of KRW 50,000,000, monthly management expenses of KRW 400,000 in total, and KRW 4,840,00 in total, and KRW 4,840,00 in total, shall be paid on the last day of each month.

Term of lease: In cases where a lessee fails to pay rent, management expenses and additional taxes on two occasions from November 16, 2018 to November 15, 2020, the lessor may terminate the lease contract.

(Article 2. The lessee shall pay the rent and other expenses within the time limit set forth in Article 1, and shall additionally pay the late payment charge of 5% per month at the time of payment after the expiration of the time limit for payment due to the circumstances of the lessee.

[5% at the time of delinquency of one month, and every month arrears shall be imposed until the payment is made] (Article 17(2). (b).

The Defendants did not pay KRW 165,120,00 for monthly rent after March 2019 (the payment date March 31, 2019) and for April 2019.

C. On June 26, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants, stating that “The instant lease agreement is terminated on the grounds of two or more occasions of delinquency in payment, and thus seeking payment of the name of the instant building and the overdue rent, etc.,” and the duplicate of the complaint was served on the Defendants on July 17, 2019.

On the other hand, on November 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs succeeded to the status of lessor pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act by transferring the ownership of the building of this case to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “Succession Intervenor”).

E. The Defendants, as married couple, are operating a mutually named restaurant, “F” in the instant building, since they concluded the instant lease contract in the name of Defendant D, the denying couple, and until the date of closing argument.

【Ground of recognition】 There is no dispute.