1. The Defendants deliver 3 and 4 floors among the buildings listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 20, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant C on the deposit deposit amounting to KRW 30 million, lease period of KRW 24 million, monthly rent of KRW 7 million, management fee monthly, and KRW 200,000,000 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with regard to the third and fourth floors (hereinafter “instant building”) among the buildings listed in the separate sheet, and agreed that the Plaintiff may terminate the instant lease agreement if Defendant C fails to pay rent, management fee, etc. for at least two months.

B. Defendant D currently operates a golf practice range in the instant building.

C. As of February 20, 2019, Defendant C delayed payment of KRW 48,404,454, the sum of the rent and management expenses as of February 20, 2019, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant lease by serving the duplicate of the instant complaint on the Defendant C. The duplicate of the instant complaint was served on March 25, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, Defendant C did not pay rent and management expenses under the instant lease agreement for more than two months, and the duplicate of the complaint of this case, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement was reached to Defendant C on March 25, 2019, and the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on March 25, 2019.

I would like to say.

Therefore, under the instant lease agreement, Defendant C, the lessee, and Defendant D, who directly occupies the instant building without title, are obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, the owner and the lessor of the instant building.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.