1. The defendant jointly receives KRW 22.5 million from the plaintiffs, and at the same time, the building as shown in attached Table 1 to the plaintiffs.

1. The Plaintiffs, as the cause of the instant claim, are asserted as indicated in the attached Form No. 1-5, 13, 23, and 24, and all of their arguments can be acknowledged according to the evidence No. 1-5, 13, 2

Therefore, in principle, the defendant is obliged to deliver each part of the building stated in the order to the plaintiffs.

2.(a)

The defendant asserts to the effect that the notification of the rejection of renewal on August 10, 2016 to himself was made solely by the plaintiff A, and thus, his lease contract was implicitly renewed according to the intention of the expiration date of the lease term ( September 20, 2016).

However, according to the evidence Nos. 13 and 24-26 (including each number), Plaintiff A agreed to manage the building indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 on behalf of the heir after the death of the networkF ( October 20, 2015) and the remaining Plaintiffs and the heir, and notified the Defendant thereof and received rent from the Defendant from the time of the occurrence. Considering this, the above notification of the refusal to renew is lawful, and the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

(Article 547(1) of the Civil Code invoked by the Defendant is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the notification of the refusal to renew the contract, rather than the notification of the termination of the contract).

The defendant defense to the effect that there is no obligation to respond to the plaintiffs' claims before receiving the repayment of beneficial expenses, but there is no evidence to deem that there is an increase in the value of the leased property at the time of termination of the lease due to the defendant's construction works, and according to the evidence Nos. 3 and 5, the defendant can be aware of the fact that the lease contract was terminated to the original state.

However, even according to the reasons for the claim, it can be recognized that a total of KRW 22.5 million was paid to the lessor at the time of the Defendant’s lease contract. Accordingly, the Defendant shall comply with the Plaintiffs’ claim until the said deposit is returned jointly from the Plaintiffs.