1. The Defendants are to the Plaintiff:

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the annex;

(b) Joint and several 3,500,000 won and June 1, 2014

1. Facts recognized;

A. On March 9, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the building indicated in the attached Form to Defendant Samsung F&D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) for the period from March 31, 2013 to March 30, 2015, with a deposit of KRW 6 million, KRW 500,000 per month, and the period from March 31, 2013 to March 30, 2015.

B. However, without the Plaintiff’s consent, the Defendant Company subleted the building indicated in the attached Form to Defendant B, and delayed as from June 2013.

C. On November 7, 2013, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant Company a content-certified mail stating the intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of overdue rent, etc. of the Defendant Company.

At present, the defendant company did not pay the difference from November 1, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] A: A without dispute over the defendant company; entry of Gap evidence 1; purport of the entire pleadings; deemed confessions

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement is deemed to have been lawfully terminated and terminated, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to deliver the building indicated in the attached Form to the Plaintiff, and pay damages equivalent to the rent in arrears or the amount of damages equivalent to the rent in arrears from November 1, 2013 to May 31, 2014 (=7 months x 500,000 won) and the rent in arrears calculated at the rate of KRW 500,000 per month from June 1, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the said building.

B. (1) The defendant company asserted that the defendant company paid the rent of KRW 2 million around February 2014, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant company is without merit.

(2) In addition, Defendant Company asserts to the effect that the rent did not have been overdue since the lease deposit remains. However, even if the lease deposit was granted to the lessor, the lessor may freely choose whether to cover the overdue rent from the lease deposit while the lease relationship continues, and thus, Supreme Court Decision 28 February 28, 2013 is rendered.