1. The Defendants shall deliver the building indicated in the attached Form to the Plaintiff.

2. Defendant C shall be attached from March 20, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; or (b) Gap evidence No. 1, No. 2; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings.

On November 3, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendants, setting the term of lease from January 31, 2016 to January 31, 2018 as KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,200,00 (including value-added tax). At that time, the Plaintiff transferred the possession of the instant building to the Defendants.

B. The Defendants were in arrears with two or more vehicles. On March 8, 2017, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail containing an expression of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement (hereinafter “instant termination notice”) to the Defendants, and the said mail reached around that time.

C. Defendant C occupied and used the instant building until the date of the closing of the argument in this case.

2. According to the facts of the above finding as to the request for extradition, this case’s lease contract was terminated as the notice of termination of this case. Thus, the Defendants are obliged to deliver the building of this case to the Plaintiff.

As to this, Defendant B did not occupy or use the building of this case since it did not occupy or use the building of this case since it did not occupy or use the building of this case after around June 2016 after running the business in the building of this case with Defendant C.

The lessee is obligated to return the leased object to the lessor as the duty to restore the leased object upon the termination of the lease contract. The lessee’s obligation to return the leased object is an indivisible obligation. Such lessee’s obligation is irrelevant to whether the lessee occupied or used the leased object at the time of the termination of the lease contract. Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion is without merit without further review.

3. Claim for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.