1. The Plaintiff:

A. The Defendants jointly do so with Defendant B’s receipt of KRW 8,00,000 from the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 7, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B on a deposit of KRW 20 million, KRW 1,200,000, and the lease term of KRW 1,200,000, and the lease term of KRW 28,000 for the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant B (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). From October 29, 2015 to October 28, 2016, the Plaintiff received a deposit of KRW 20,000,000 from Defendant B and handed over the instant real estate to Defendant B.

B. Defendant B completed business registration under the name of Defendant C in the instant real estate and commenced restaurant business.

C. Defendant B did not pay the rent of KRW 12,00,000 as of November 10, 2016, and thereafter, did not pay the rent until now.

The Defendants currently occupy the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendants asserted that the instant lawsuit filed against the Defendants is unlawful on the grounds that the Plaintiff is not the party’s standing. However, in a lawsuit for performance, the Plaintiff’s standing as the party’s own claim and the determination thereof is absorbed into the judgment of the propriety of the claim. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion of his claim for payment is a legitimate Plaintiff and the obligor is the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da14797, Jun. 14, 1994). Therefore, the Defendants’ aforementioned defense of safety is without merit.

B. Even if Defendant B’s aforementioned assertion is deemed as a lessee D of the instant lease agreement, and Defendant B did not bear the obligation to pay rent to the Plaintiff, the parties to the instant lease agreement under the instant lease agreement (Evidence A1) are recognized as having been the Plaintiff and Defendant B. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. Determination as to the cause of the claim