1. The Defendants are paid KRW 5 million from the Plaintiff, and at the same time, among the 1st floor of the building indicated in the attached Table.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On August 8, 2009, the Plaintiff delegated the Plaintiff’s right to lease the instant store to wife E, which is the Plaintiff’s owner. 2) The Plaintiff leased the instant store to the Defendants as the Plaintiff’s agent KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 350,000. The Defendants from that time run the sales business of electric lighting fixtures, etc. at the instant store. However, the lease agreement asserted as concluded between E and the Defendants against the terms and conditions of the said lease agreement is null and void since it is a contract concluded based on a false agreement among them.

3) However, the Defendants did not pay to the Plaintiff the rent of the instant store. As such, the Plaintiff terminated the instant store lease agreement, and the Defendants seek the return of the instant store and the payment of the rent for the instant store. (B) The Defendants, the Plaintiff’s agent, and the instant store, entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff from August 8, 2009 to August 7, 201, under which the deposit amount is KRW 17 million for the Plaintiff’s agent E and the instant store.

2) The Defendants actually paid KRW 8 million out of the deposit amount of KRW 17 million. On August 8, 2010, the Defendants ordered E to suspend the payment of the remaining KRW 9 million, instead of being granted a grace period of KRW 1.5 million, that the lease contract was renewed by increasing the lease deposit amount of KRW 21 million, and the Defendants paid KRW 5 million out of the unpaid deposit including the increased deposit amount. On September 2, 2010, the remaining amount of KRW 8 million was remitted to E on June 1, 2012.

4. Therefore, the Defendants cannot deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff until a refund of KRW 21 million is made from the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. The premise is that E, the Plaintiff’s wife, with the Plaintiff’s delegation, entered into a lease agreement on the instant store with the Defendants’ agent, and even according to the Defendants’ assertion, the instant store is located in the instant case.