1. The Defendants are each of the items indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 among the 1st floor of the building listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 13, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B, setting the lease deposit of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 3.2 million, and the lease period of KRW 3.2 million, from October 31, 2014 to October 31, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), with regard to the leased property of KRW 142.7 square meters (hereinafter “the leased property of this case”), among the buildings listed in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff, as indicated in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff, and transferred the leased property of this case after receiving the lease deposit from the said Defendant.

B. Upon Defendant B’s request, the Plaintiff prepared a lease agreement under Defendant C’s name on September 5, 2014, and the Defendants operated a restaurant with the trade name “D” from the leased object of this case.

C. However, the Defendants did not pay a monthly rent to the Plaintiff after the conclusion of the instant lease agreement. On January 27, 2015, and March 3, 2015, the Plaintiff urged the Defendants to pay the unpaid rent by content-certified mail, and expressed their intent to cancel the instant lease agreement on the grounds of arrears for at least three (3) years if the Defendants failed to implement the said agreement.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the contract on the grounds that the Defendants were in arrears for more than three years, and thus, the Defendants are obligated to return the leased object to the Plaintiff.

B. As to this, Defendant B shall be liable for damages from the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s business was obstructed by arbitrarily removing the signboards set up at the entrance of the place of business, making a warehouse at the entrance, etc., and the Defendants’ business cannot be run properly on the wind where malodor was emitted from leased objects and water was generated.