1. The Defendants are to the Plaintiff:

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) Joint and several occasions from October 17, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 24, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant C with respect to the entire five floors (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among the buildings listed in the separate sheet, which are owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

- Lease Period from August 24, 2015 - Lease Deposit of KRW 20 million / Monthly Rent of KRW 850,000 (including value-added tax) - Pursuant to Article 5, the lessee may be reconstructed or altered with the approval of the lessor, but at the expense of the lessee prior to the date of return of the real estate, the lease may be restored or altered;

(b) The facility taken over shall be restored to its original state;

B. After the instant lease agreement, the Defendants (EF) operated a private teaching institute (EF) under the name of Defendant C in the instant real estate.

C. When the Plaintiff was in arrears for more than three months, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the termination of the instant lease agreement.

(Certification of Contents of June 30, 2017, Certification of Contents of January 15, 2018, the complaint of this case) D. D.

As of the date of closing argument of this case, the monthly rent paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff is limited to KRW 12.1 million. At present, the Defendants are running a private teaching institute business in the instant real estate.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, Eul evidence No. 6-7, the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the cause of the claim, since the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated due to the termination due to the delinquency in rent, the Defendants, who currently operated and used private teaching institutes in the instant real estate, should deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the unpaid monthly rent or rent.

B. (1) Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion (1) - Defendant D’s prior defense on the merits of the instant lease agreement is a party to the instant lease agreement, and thus, Defendant D is a party to the instant lease agreement, and he/she is not entitled to the Defendant, but in the lawsuit of performance.