1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

A. Of the first floor of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-ground buildings, each of the indication of drawings in the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 18, 2006, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with regard to the first floor 63 square meters among the buildings located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E and F (hereinafter “instant leased objects”) owned by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant leased objects”) from KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 31 million, and the period from May 1, 2006 to April 30, 2008.

Since then, the plaintiffs and the defendant have renewed the lease contract several times, and on April 25, 2018, they concluded the lease contract again with the deposit of KRW 50 million, KRW 50 million per month, KRW 5.9 million per month, management expenses (excluding value-added tax), KRW 748,00 per month, and the period from May 1, 2018 to April 30, 2019.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On March 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs notified the Defendant of the intent to refuse the renewal of the instant lease by content-certified mail, and the said content-certified mail reached the Defendant around that time.

C. While the Defendant continues to sell building materials from the leased object of this case until the closing date of the pleadings of this case, the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiffs a total of KRW 52,574,886 under the instant lease agreement for seven months from May 1, 2019 to November 30, 2019. The details are as shown in the attached Table.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 5 through 9 (including branch numbers), each entry, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement has expired on April 30, 2019, and the Defendant is obligated to deliver the leased object to the Plaintiffs.

In addition, even after the termination of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant gains unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent by continuously using and benefiting from the leased object for the purpose of the sales place of building materials, and thereby inflict damages equivalent to the same amount on the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Defendant is the possession and use of the leased object to the Plaintiffs.