1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. From March 30, 2019, the above A

(b).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On or around March 30, 2014, Plaintiff A entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1200,000, and from March 30, 2014 to March 29, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Defendant occupied the instant real estate from around that time, and used the instant real estate as a car page with the trade name “E”.

B. On April 30, 2018, Plaintiff A entered into a gift agreement with Plaintiff B, C, and Plaintiff A with respect to the instant real estate to donate one-third of each of the Plaintiff’s ownership to the said Plaintiffs, and completed the partial transfer registration as Seoul Western District Court’s receipt on June 7, 2018.

C. On December 19, 2018, the Plaintiffs sent to the Defendant, on March 29, 2019, a content-certified mail to the effect that the renewal should be refused upon the expiration of the instant lease agreement. At that time, the Plaintiffs sent to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the instant lease contract was terminated upon the expiration of the period on March 29, 2019. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs, and return the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated in the ratio of KRW 1,200,000 per month from March 30, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate.

Meanwhile, around March 2019, the defendant alleged that the defendant suffered losses in violation of the agreement, although the plaintiffs agreed to promptly refund the amount equivalent to the down payment when the defendant entered into a lease contract for a new object, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.