1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Plaintiff:

A. As to Defendant B’s KRW 37,520,350 and KRW 36,071,747 among them,

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation on this part is that "(6) each of the above lease agreements (hereinafter "each of the lease agreements of this case") was explicitly renewed to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the Commercial Building Management and Operation Rules (if a lessee intends to continue to operate his/her business, it shall be required to renew the lease agreement in writing at least one month before the expiration of the contract: Provided, That if a renewal request is not made, it shall be one year renewal contract). The defendants sent to the plaintiff on September 1, 2016, stating that "the plaintiff may remove the deposit immediately after the date is fixed, it shall prepare a certificate of deposit to be returned, and inform him/her of the date to be returned," and "No. 9 of the fourth and fourth No. 20, "No. 9" added "No. 18," and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of the unpaid rent, management fee, late payment charge, etc. (hereinafter “unpaid rent, etc.”) to KRW 37,520,350, and the principal to KRW 36,771,747; Defendant C is obligated to pay KRW 27,828,175 in aggregate of unpaid rent, etc. and KRW 27,31,851 in principal among them; Defendant D is obliged to pay KRW 25,382,380 in aggregate of unpaid rent, etc. and principal KRW 24,890,870 in total and KRW 23,01,583 in total and KRW 22,469,365 in principal and KRW 15% in total from the following day of the amendment of the purport of the claim in this case to the date of complete payment.

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The assertion of unstable defense of Article 536(2) of the Civil Act is 1.