1. The Defendants shall deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet to each Plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 1, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) leased a building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendants by designating KRW 10 million as a lease deposit and KRW 150,000 per month; (b) provided, however, that, without setting the lease term, the Plaintiff entered into a special agreement that “if the Plaintiff notifies the Defendants of the building two months before the sale of the building, it shall immediately return the building to the original state and return it to the owner of the building

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Defendants: (a) remodeled the instant building into a coffee store and used it; and (b) delayed payment from August 2015 to October 2015.

C. On November 3, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the termination of the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the delinquency in rent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 6 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the instant lease contract was terminated upon termination, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant building to each Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. Although the Defendants did not pay the rent, there was an inevitable circumstance in arrears, such as the fact that the Defendants did not use the instant building at all due to the number of leaflets.

The Plaintiff also understood the Defendants’ delinquency in rent.

B. Since the duty of a lessor to allow a lessee to use and benefit from an object in a determined lease agreement and the duty to pay rent for a lessee is in a mutually responding relationship, if the lessor is unable to use the object at all due to his/her failure to perform his/her duty to allow the lessor to use and benefit from the object, the lessee may refuse to pay the rent in whole. However, if the use and benefit of the object is partly hindered, the lessee may refuse to pay the rent in whole to the extent that such failure may not be avoided.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da44778 delivered on April 25, 1997, see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da4778).