1. The Defendants jointly deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached Form.

2. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B is 842.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 8, 2017, Defendant B entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff, and with respect to the Plaintiff-owned Seoul Mapo-gu D building B 703 (hereinafter “instant officetel”), as stipulated in the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.8 million (prepaid on June 26, 2017), and the lease term of KRW 1.8 million from June 26, 2017 to June 25, 2018.

B. A repeated payment made by Defendant B by delaying the rent was delayed and later delayed, including the rent of one million won for October 2017. On January 4, 2018, the Plaintiff notified the said Defendant of the termination of the lease contract on the ground of the delayed rent, and thus, the Plaintiff notified the delivery of the building “as the lease contract was terminated on the ground of the delayed rent.”

C. Meanwhile, Defendant C, the former wife of Defendant B, completed the move-in report on September 25, 2017 and resides in the instant officetel.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant B: A without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 8, and the purport of the body before the oral argument

2. According to the facts found above, the above lease contract was lawfully terminated on January 4, 2018 and terminated on the ground that the Plaintiff notified the termination of the contract on the grounds of the rent delay.

Therefore, Defendant B, a lessee, is obligated to deliver the instant officetel to the Plaintiff, and pay rent or unjust enrichment calculated at the rate of KRW 842,00,000 per month from November 26, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the instant officetel, calculated by subtracting KRW 158,00,000, which is the boiler repair cost recognized by the Plaintiff from the unpaid rent of KRW 1.8 million for October 2017, as well as KRW 1.8,80,000 per month from November 26, 2017. (2) Defendant C, who actually occupies and uses the instant officetel, has the obligation to deliver the said officetel jointly with Defendant B and pay unjust enrichment to the said officetel at the rate of KRW 1.8,00 per month from January 5, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the instant officetel.

3. In conclusion, we decide to accept all the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants, and it is so decided as per Disposition.