1. The defendant,

A. The Plaintiff A’s KRW 27,725,00 and its related KRW 5% per annum from July 10, 2015 to January 13, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 18, 2012, Plaintiff A entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a deposit of KRW 30 million with respect to approximately 100 square meters (E) on the first floor of the land-based building in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, and one story, and on the same day, the Defendant paid the deposit of KRW 30 million to the Defendant.

B. On December 15, 2010, Plaintiff B entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on approximately KRW 26.45 square meters (F Licensed Real Estate Agent Office) of the first floor of the building, and paid KRW 15 million to the Defendant on the 31st of the same month.

C. Meanwhile, Nonparty G, the Defendant’s shape, filed a lawsuit for partition of co-owned property against the co-owners of the above building, including the Defendant, with this court 2009Gahap8587. As the judgment on the sole ownership of the said building became final and conclusive on August 25, 2014, G sought delivery of the building against the lessees, including the Plaintiffs, around January 2015, by this court 2015Gadan203805, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking prohibition of disposal and management of the above building.

Each Plaintiff entered into a new lease agreement with G on March 1, 2015, and paid each deposit to G. Accordingly, G was subject to the same year.

4. 9. The part of the above lawsuit against the plaintiffs was withdrawn.

[Reasons for Recognition: Each entry (including partial number of headings) in A1 to 10]

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, G, which becomes a sole owner of each lease between the plaintiffs and the defendant, filed a claim for the delivery of the object to the plaintiffs based on the ownership, and delivered it by the method of possession revision by the plaintiffs, and thus, the defendant as the previous lessor is unable to perform the obligation of the plaintiffs to allow them to use and benefit from the above building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da15087, Mar. 8, 1996). Accordingly, each lease agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant was terminated.

B. As to this, the defendant is the defendant in accordance with Article 3 (2) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.