1. The Defendant: 10,000,000 won to the Plaintiffs, and 5% per annum from August 26, 2016 to February 1, 2017, and thereafter.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 28, 2010, the Plaintiffs leased the entire first floor of the building F and G ground (hereinafter “the instant building”) of Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, KRW 20 million, KRW 900,000,000, KRW 10,000,000, KRW 10,000,000 from the lease deposit, and KRW 90,000,000 from the lease term to January 10, 2013 (hereinafter “the instant lease”). From around that time, the Plaintiffs engaged in scambling operations with the name

B. On May 1, 2013, D and E filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs on May 1, 2013, asserting that the instant lease was terminated as the expiration of the term, seeking payment of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent arising from the time of delivery and delivery of the instant building by the Cheongju District Court Decision 2013Da727.

(hereinafter referred to as "the first instance court". After the appellate court, D succeeds to and participates in E and E withdraws from the court of appeal, the plaintiffs' total counter-party to the lawsuit including the case where E withdraws from the court of appeal is referred to as "leased."

On July 9, 2013, the Plaintiffs entered into a delegation contract with the Defendant, an attorney-at-law on the first instance case, and the Defendant submitted a letter of delegation of the lawsuit to the said court on July 15, 2013.

In the first instance court, the court rendered a ruling dismissing the lessor's claim on November 7, 2013, when determining that the lease of this case was renewed in accordance with Article 10 (1) and (4) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, and that the term of the lease was not expired.

E. The lessor appealed against the above judgment of the first instance court, and the Plaintiffs are the Cheongju District Court Decision 2013Na648, Feb. 12, 2014, hereinafter referred to as “Cheongju District Court case”).

The defendant was also appointed as a legal representative in relation to B.

F. On the other hand, the lessor asserts that the lease of this case was terminated at the appellate court, and even if the lease of this case was renewed selectively, the Plaintiffs violated the lessee’s duty of notification and management, and intentionally or by gross negligence, the outer wall and fence of the building of this case without the lessor’s consent.