1. Defendant C: (a) KRW 2,816,580 to Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 350,000 to Plaintiff B; and (c) to each of them, from June 21, 2014 to January 28, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 21, 2009, Defendant C entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the condition that the name of the lessee was F, which was the mother of the Plaintiff A, the lease deposit was KRW 5,00,000, the rent was KRW 550,000 per month, and the lease term was 24 months from October 21, 2009, with respect to the part of the first floor among the third floor E-ground buildings owned by the said Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

Plaintiff

On October 20, 2009, A paid the lease deposit of KRW 5,000,000 and the annual rent of KRW 6,600,000 to Defendant C.

After that, the lease contract of this case was renewed, and the term of lease was extended to October 20, 2013.

B. On February 17, 2013, Plaintiff A entered into a sublease contract between Plaintiff B with respect to the instant store (hereinafter “instant sublease contract”) whereby the period of sublease from February 25, 2013 to October 25, 2013 is set as KRW 1,00,000 per month and that the said store subleases the said store to Plaintiff B (hereinafter “instant sublease contract”).

At the time of the conclusion of the above sub-lease contract, Plaintiff B paid to Plaintiff A the amount of KRW 43,00,000,000 including the lease deposit of KRW 5,00,000.

C. Defendant D is the children of Defendant C.

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

2. The instant lease agreement under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act asserted by the Plaintiffs remains legitimate until October 20, 2014, when five years have elapsed since October 21, 2009, the first contract date.

On the other hand, Defendant C consented to sublet the instant store to Plaintiff B, but around October 2013, Defendant C closed the entrance of the instant store and prevented Plaintiff B from operating the said store. Defendant D added the instant store to Plaintiff B with “A” and ped the instant store.

In addition, the defendants neglect the goods owned by the plaintiffs in the store of this case.