1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 130,00,000, and KRW 100,000,000 for each of the said money to the Plaintiff B and each of the said money respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 8, 2007, D entered into a lease agreement with G management body that delegated the right to lease the instant commercial building from the owners of the fourth floor (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu and F ground G buildings, with the content that the instant commercial building was leased by setting the lease period as 36 months from the date of delivery of the instant commercial building (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. Since 2008, the Defendant, who is a D’s model, used the instant commercial building for the purpose of call text, restaurant, etc.

C. On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff A entered into a sub-lease contract with the Defendant for the amount of KRW 130 million (including management expenses), monthly rent of KRW 250,000 (including management expenses) from October 25, 2013 to October 25, 2015 (hereinafter “the first sub-lease contract”), and thereafter, Plaintiff A paid KRW 130,000,000 for the sublease deposit to the Defendant and operated the head office at the same place.

Plaintiff

B On November 28, 2011, the Defendant entered into a sub-lease contract with the pertinent commercial building, which is used as a restaurant of the call book, KRW 100,000,000 for sub-lease deposit, KRW 300,000 for monthly rent, and the lease period is determined from the contract date to July 30, 2012, and paid KRW 100,000 for the sub-lease deposit to the Defendant around that time.

Plaintiff

B sublets the above part of the restaurant to H and I, and H operated the restaurant in the name of “J cafeteria” and “K cafeteria.”

E. The commercial building of this case consists of a total of 137 stores and divided registration. Of the 22 persons holding the commercial building of this case, the Seoul Central District Court against sub-lessees, including D, the defendant, and the plaintiffs, on the ground that sub-lessees, including D, the defendant, and the plaintiffs, occupy and use the commercial building of this case without authority despite the termination of the lease contract of this case.