1. The Plaintiff:

A. The Defendant (Appointed) and the appointed parties shall be attached to the second floor of the building listed in the separate sheet.

On April 27, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the part of the building indicated in the order (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Plaintiff to Defendant (Appointed Party) and the Selected Party C, with a deposit of KRW 3 million, monthly rent of KRW 250,000,000 from April 27, 2012 to April 26, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). According to this, if the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the said Appointed sub-leases the instant building without the Plaintiff’s consent, the Plaintiff may immediately terminate the contract, without the Plaintiff’s consent, and the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the said Appointed sub-party sub-leaseed the instant building to D without the Plaintiff’s consent, and on June 27, 2014, the fact that the instant building was in arrears of KRW 200,000,000,000,000 from June 27, 2014, including the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to cancel the lease contract and the entire 31.

According to the above facts, as the instant lease contract was terminated, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties are obligated to deliver each of the parts of the instant building to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties C are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, calculated at the rate of KRW 250,000 per month from June 27, 2013 to the completion date of delivery of the said building.

Although the Defendant (Appointed Party) alleged that the Plaintiff gave implied consent to the sub-lease, it is not acceptable to accept the aforementioned assertion, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party is justified, and all of them are accepted.