1. The Defendants jointly and severally against the Plaintiff

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

(b) 69,600,000 won and its corresponding;

1. As to the judgment on the main defense of Defendant B’s main defense, the Plaintiff sought against the Defendants the delivery of real estate following the termination of the lease agreement and the payment of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent or rent, Defendant B asserts that he is not qualified as the Defendant, since he is not related to the lease agreement or withdraws from the lease relationship.

However, in the performance suit, since the person who was designated as the performance obligor by the plaintiff has the eligibility for the defendant, the above principal safety defense by the defendant B is without merit.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. D operated the PC (PC) bank (hereinafter “the instant PC”) by leasing the instant real estate from E.

D) On January 16, 2013, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 170 million from the Plaintiff. Around January 17, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the said loan in installments, and around January 17, 2013, D entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to pay KRW 500,000,000 to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 170,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

At the time of the above contract for the entrusted management of the store, D agreed to immediately deliver the store to the Plaintiff if it delays the payment of rent or other charges to the above entrusted business cost of KRW 5 million per month or the building owner for at least two months. In the event of a violation of the agreement, D decided to immediately deliver the store to the Plaintiff. In this case, D decided to immediately deliver the store.

After January 24, 2013, the Plaintiff and the lessor E, and the lease deposit amount of KRW 35 million on January 24, 2013, monthly rent of KRW 23 million.