1. Defendant H:

A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 against the Plaintiff A and B;

B. Attached Table 2 shall apply to Plaintiff C and D.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to Defendant G, Plaintiff A and B entered into each of the following lease agreements (hereinafter “each of the instant lease agreements”) with regard to the commercial buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “1”) as follows: (a) Plaintiff C and D entered in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “2 commercial buildings”); (b) Plaintiff E and F entered in the separate sheet No. 3 (hereinafter “3 commercial buildings”); (c) with respect to the commercial buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 3 (hereinafter “3 commercial buildings”); and (b) with respect to the combination of 1,2, and 3 commercial buildings, the period of lease on April 28, 2014 to June 30, 202; and (c) Defendant G paid each of the following deposits.

1. 1st price: 60,000,000 won for deposit, and 5,000,000,000 won for rent (excluding value-added tax): 70,00,000 won for deposit, and 4,80,000 won for rent (excluding value-added tax) 3: 150,000 won for deposit, and 5,200,000 won for rent (excluding value-added tax); and

B. Defendant G’s father H is operating a restaurant with the trade name “I” in each of the instant commercial buildings.

C. Defendant G did not pay the rent for each of the instant commercial buildings until now after the delayed payment of the rent on July 2016.

The Plaintiffs expressed their intent to terminate each of the instant lease agreements to Defendant G as the delivery of the instant complaint.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of India’s recognition, since each of the instant lease agreements was lawfully terminated due to Defendant G’s delinquency in rent, Defendant G and H are obligated to deliver each of the instant commercial buildings to the Plaintiffs.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that, under each of the instant lease agreements, the contract may be rescinded after giving a written peremptory notice (Article 7), and that the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention to terminate the contract has no effect since the Plaintiff did not give a written peremptory notice.

In this regard, Defendant H is not a party to the lease contract.