[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Nam-name, Attorney Choi Ba-han, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

○○○○○ and 3 others (Law Firm C&C, Attorneys Won-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

August 19, 2016

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant ○○○○, Inc.

1) At the same time with payment of KRW 500,00,000 from the Plaintiff, the H beamline columns at the bottom of 510.6 square meters in part (A) of the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 1 of the attached Table No. 1 among the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table shall be removed, and the real estate stated in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 510,6 square meters of the above land and the attached Table No. 2 shall be delivered;

2) From August 11, 2015 to the removal of the self-stocks parking lot as described in the foregoing paragraph (a) and the delivery of each real estate as described in paragraph (1) shall be paid the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 49,500,000 per month;

B. Defendant 2 (original trial: Defendant 2) and Defendant 3 jointly with Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○.

1) deliver the buildings listed in Attachment 2; and

2) Payment of the amount by the rate of KRW 49,50,000 per month from August 11, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the real estate listed in [Attachment List 2] shall be made;

C. Defendant 4

Of the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table 2, the part of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 1 of the attached Table 2 among the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table shall be handed over to the ship business, 182 square meters in the Hague room.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant ○○○○○, defendant 2, and defendant 3 are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/3 of the portion arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant ○○○○○○○, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder 2/3 by the Plaintiff, Defendant ○○○○○, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, respectively, and the portion arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 4 shall be borne by Defendant 4.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Plaintiff

1. Defendant ○○○○○, Inc.:

A. At the same time with payment of KRW 500,00,000 from the Plaintiff, the H beam beam columns at the bottom of 510.6 square meters in the part of the ship (A) in the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 1 among the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table among the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table shall be removed, and the real estate of each of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 shall be delivered to the Plaintiff, and the H beam beam columns at the bottom of 510.6 square meters in the above H beam columns shall be removed,

B. From August 11, 2015, 363,000, and from August 11, 2015, the amount calculated by applying the ratio of KRW 66,00,000 per month to the removal of the self-stocks parking lot and the completion of delivery of each real estate listed in the separate sheet;

2. Defendant 2 and Defendant 3:

(a) remove the parking lots of self-owned shares, such as the H beam columns and steel plates of the upper part connected with the 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 1 of the attached sheet No. 1 among the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list, which are connected in the order of each point in the attached sheet No. 1 of the attached sheet No. 510 square meters; and deliver each real estate listed in the attached list;

B. From August 11, 2015, jointly and severally with Defendant ○○○○○○, Defendant Co., Ltd., to the date of removal of the self-stocks parking lot as described in the foregoing paragraph (a) and the date of completion of delivery of each real estate as listed in the separate sheet, 66,000,000 won per month shall be paid.

3. Defendant 4

The real estate mentioned in paragraph (3) of this Article is handed over.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Conclusion of the instant lease agreement

1) On October 25, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant ○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○○○○”) on a deposit of KRW 500 million, monthly rent of KRW 45 million (excluding value-added tax), and from October 26, 201 to October 25, 201, with respect to the building listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”).

2) The contents pertaining to the instant lease agreement are as follows.

Article 3:Lease Deposit and Rent

1.The deposit pursuant to this Agreement shall be 50 million won ( 500,000,000).

2.The down payment shall be 50,000 won ( 50,000,00) 26 October 2011;

Any balance shall be 450,000,000 won ( 450,000,000) on November 25, 2011.

3.The rent shall be 45 million won per month ( 45,000,000) (V.A.T separate).

Provided, That from the date of conclusion of the contract to October 25, 2012, 38 million won (e.g. 38,000,000) shall be 3,80 million won.

4. Monthly rent shall be paid by the 10th day of each month. The additional 18% interest per annum from the date of arrears to the time of payment must be paid to the Plaintiff by adding a delay surcharge.

5. The monthly rent shall be exempted not later than January 9, 2012, but if it is operated prior to that date, it shall be determined on that date;

Article 6:Increase of Lease Deposit

When there is a remarkable increase in expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of the leased object or in general prices due to the amendment of the Acts and subordinate statutes, economic changes, increase in the cooperation between the land and buildings, or other reasons, the deposit and rent for the lease may be raised every two years during the term of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Article 7:Facilities Installation and Repair Works

1. In case of changing facilities and equipment related to a building leased by the Defendant ○○○○○○○, prior consent of the Plaintiff shall be obtained, and the cost shall be borne by the Defendant ○○○○○○○○○.

The partitions and other incidental facilities installed by Defendant ○○○○ upon the expiration of the lease term shall be restored to its original state upon the Plaintiff’s request.

6. At the expense of Defendant ○○○○○○, a right cannot be exercised against the Plaintiff or a third party upon the expiration of the lease of the building extension and all other facilities.

Article 15: Termination of Contracts

In any of the following cases, the Plaintiff may terminate this contract without a peremptory notice, etc. against Defendant ○○○○○○:

1. Where the defendant ○○○○ violates each of the provisions of this Agreement;

2. In a case where the ○○○○○○ does not pay rent, public interest, and other charges for more than 60 days, the lawsuit on this contract shall be brought to the competent court to which the place of the building belongs.

3) Defendant ○○○○○ opened a crowdfunding business with delivery of the instant building.

4) Around 2012, Defendant ○○○○○○ extended the area of one story 528.1 square meters on the instant building; 1,183.95 square meters on the ground; and 72.54 square meters on the ground of three stories on the instant building (hereinafter “instant extension”); among the land indicated in the attached Table No. 1, the land indicated in the attached Table No. 1, attached Table No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10.6 square meters on the part (A), which connects each point of (hereinafter “parking lot”) among the land indicated in the attached Table No. 1, the parking lot for self-owned shares (hereinafter “instant parking lot”).

(b) Conclusion of sub-lease contracts and current status of operation of crowdfunding services;

1) On December 20, 201, Defendant 1 and Defendant 4 entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty 1 and Defendant 4 on the part (B) (hereinafter “instant Hague-based lease agreement”) (hereinafter “instant Hague-based lease agreement”) that connects each point of the attached table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 1 of the attached table 2 to each point in order.

2) On September 25, 2014, Defendant 2 entered into a lease agreement between Defendant 2 and Defendant 2 on deposit money of KRW 300 million, monthly rent of KRW 49.5 million, and on September 30, 2015, between September 30, 2014 and September 30, 2015 (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”).

3) Defendant 2 closed ex officio on September 30, 2014, and thereafter, Defendant 2 was in operation up to the present day with the trade name “△△○○○○○○” in the instant building from Defendant 3 and the instant building. Defendant 3 is the husband of Defendant 2 and Nonparty 2, a joint representative of Defendant ○○○○○○○○.

C. The Defendant ○○○○○○’s delinquency in rent, and the Plaintiff’s termination of the instant lease agreement

1) Until June 17, 2015, Defendant ○○○○○○○ or Defendant 2 (△○○○○○○) paid the rent of KRW 49.5 million each month in the name of Defendant 2, but thereafter, in arrears since July 2015, Defendant 2 paid the rent of KRW 49.5 million around November 2, 2015, which was subsequent to the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit, and KRW 49.5 million around November 30, 2015, and KRW 9.5 million on November 30, 2015.

2) On September 30, 2015, a duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○ on the ground that the lease contract of this case is terminated on the ground of the following: (a) the rent delay of Defendant ○○○○○○○; and (b) the lease contract of this case

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 7, 9, Eul 1 through 6 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim against Defendant ○○○○○

A. As to the claim for delivery and removal

1) Determination as to the cause of claim

According to the above facts, since Defendant ○○○○○○ was in arrears with two or more vehicles from July 2015, Defendant 2015, the termination right of the instant lease was created against the Plaintiff, a lessor of the instant building, and the duplicate of the instant complaint, which included the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease contract, is apparent in the record on September 30, 2015, which served on Defendant ○○○○○○○○. Accordingly, the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated on September 30, 2015 upon the Plaintiff’s exercise of the Plaintiff’s right to terminate the lease contract. Accordingly, Defendant ○○○○○ was obligated to receive KRW 500 million, a deposit under the instant lease contract, and remove the instant parking lot from the Plaintiff at the same time, and deliver the parking lot and the instant building.

Since the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant ○○○○ has a duty to deliver all of the land indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table, except the land for the parking lot, it is hard to see that the building site for the building is occupied by the owner of the building, since the building cannot exist regardless of the land. Thus, the land which became the site for the building shall not be deemed as possessed by the owner of the building (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da57935, Nov. 13, 2003, etc.). Since the lease contract for the building of this case is a lease contract for the building of this case, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff occupies the land indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table except the part which the Plaintiff occupies while owning the parking lot of this case. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2) Determination on Defendant ○○○○○○’s defense, etc.

A) Defendant ○○○○ asserts to the effect that there is a justifiable reason for delinquency in the payment of rent, since the Plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice and did not pay rent.

If Defendant ○○○○ pays value-added tax along with monthly rent to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff would issue a tax invoice to Defendant ○○○○○○○ pursuant to the Value-Added Tax Act. However, this is merely for the purpose of filing a value-added tax, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s duty to issue the tax invoice and the obligation to pay monthly rent to Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was an advance performance relationship or simultaneous performance relationship. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice regarding the value-added tax already received, it is difficult to deem that the said obligation alone can not be said that Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ would refuse

B) Defendant ○○○○ raised the rent unilaterally by the Plaintiff, which constitutes a de facto refusal, and the Plaintiff, who is liable for damage to trust, did not make a considerable effort to reach a smooth agreement pursuant to Articles 6 and 18 of the instant lease agreement. Therefore, Defendant ○○○ asserts to the effect that there is a justifiable reason for delaying the payment of rent.

However, according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 4 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff expressed his intention not to renew the future contract without paying the increased rent to the defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the rent prior to the increase was a continuous receipt, and further, it is excessive rent. Therefore, the fact that the plaintiff demanded the increase of rent by demanding it cannot be deemed that the trust relationship, which serves as the basis of the instant lease agreement, was destroyed and it is difficult to maintain the contractual relationship, led to the degree that the defendant ○○○○○○○○○ would have to refuse the rent payment. Thus, this part of the defendant ○○○○○○’s assertion is without merit.

C) Defendant ○○○○○ has spent useful expenses by expanding the instant building, etc., and there is a right to request the purchase of the instant building by paying the interior cost, etc. of the instant building, and accordingly, Defendant ○○○○○ asserts that he has the right to attract the instant building until the reimbursement is made.

On the ground that the instant lease contract was terminated on September 30, 2015 on the ground of the delinquency in rent by Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○, Defendant ○○○○○ delivered the instant building pursuant to the instant lease agreement and constructed the instant parking lot. Even after the termination of the instant lease agreement, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 occupied the instant building through Defendant 3, as seen earlier. However, as seen earlier, Article 7 subparag. 6 of the instant lease agreement provides, “The Plaintiff or a third party cannot exercise the right at the expense of Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ upon the expiration of the lease on all the building and all other facilities.” Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant ○○○○○○○○○ renounced renounced the right to claim beneficial expense. Moreover, in the event that the lease agreement was terminated due to the nonperformance of the lessee’s obligation, the lessee did not have any further claim for right to purchase attached things under Article 646 of the Civil Act (see, etc.

Defendant ○○○○○○ asserts that Article 7(6) of the instant lease agreement prohibits a lessee from exercising any right on the ground of an abstract concept “rights” and that it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○ was null and void because it is excessively unfavorable to Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, or that waivers of the right to claim reimbursement for beneficial non-performance solely based on the said provision. In light of Article 626 of the Civil Act on the right to claim reimbursement for building and facilities, the lessee is entitled to waive the right under an agreement between the parties, and that the right cannot be exercised under this provision is naturally included in the right to claim reimbursement for beneficial non-performance, since it is “the right to the building and facilities extended or installed at ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s expense. Even if the above provision was somewhat comprehensively defined by Article 7(6) of the said agreement, the evidence alone presented by the

B. As to the rent and the claim for return of unjust enrichment

1) The plaintiff's assertion

From October 2013 to July 2015, the Plaintiff agreed to increase the monthly rent of KRW 60 million with Defendant ○○○○○○ and KRW 60 million (excluding value-added tax). However, even after the termination of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant paid only the monthly rent of KRW 45 million, which is the previous monthly rent (excluding value-added tax), which is not the increased rent. Defendant ○○○○ has the obligation to return the unpaid rent of KRW 363 million from October 2013 to July 2015 to the Plaintiff (=63 million) x 22 months x 60 million from August 1, 2015 to the unpaid rent of KRW 65 million from August 1, 2015 to the unpaid rent of KRW 60 million.

2) Determination

A) As to the unpaid rent claim

First of all, we examine whether the monthly rent was KRW 60 million (excluding value-added tax). According to the written evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 60 million from November 2013 to November 2014. However, it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 70,000,000,000 for the rent from November 2013 to November 2014. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the written evidence No. 2 and 7, Eul evidence No. 3 and the entire purport of oral argument are as follows: ① Defendant ○○○○○○ does not have paid KRW 60,00,000 to the Plaintiff once; ② even under Article 6 of the instant lease agreement, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff agreed to raise the rent to be unconditional every two years from the lease term; ③ The Plaintiff’s demand for payment of rent to Defendant 3 and Nonparty 2 and the Plaintiff did not receive any increase in the rent, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the rent No. 66060,0,060,00,000,00.

Therefore, the rent under the instant lease agreement is still deemed to be KRW 49.5 million (including value-added tax), and the fact that Defendant ○○○○○ paid through Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 the rent to the Plaintiff by the end of August 10, 2015 is as seen earlier. As such, Defendant ○○○○ is liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid rent calculated at the rate of KRW 49.5 million (including value-added tax) per month from August 11, 2015 to September 30, 2015 when the instant lease agreement was terminated.

B) As to the claim for return of unjust enrichment from the rent party

In addition, even after the termination of the instant lease agreement, Defendant 00○○○○○○, through Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, obtained profits from the use of the instant building and the land on which the instant parking lot was installed, and thereby, caused damage to the Plaintiff in an equal amount. Therefore, Defendant 00 is obligated to return unjust enrichment from the possession and use of the said real estate to the Plaintiff.

As to the amount of unjust enrichment, the amount of profit from the possession and use of real estate in ordinary cases shall be equivalent to the rent, and as there is an agreement to pay the value-added tax equivalent to the rent in the initial lease contract, there is an agreement to pay the rent separately, it shall be liable to pay the corresponding value-added tax even in the case of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da38828, Nov. 22, 2002, etc.).

Therefore, Defendant ○○○○○ is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff money calculated at the rate of KRW 49.5 million, which is the monthly rent, from October 1, 2015 to the date the delivery of the instant building is completed.

3) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit within the scope of recognition above.

3. Determination as to claims against Defendant 2 and Defendant 3

A. As to the request for delivery of the instant building

1) Determination as to the cause of claim

The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant building, and Defendants 2 and 3 are the owner of the instant building, and they possess and use the instant building. The fact that the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated on September 30, 2015 following the Plaintiff’s exercise of the Plaintiff’s right to terminate the lease is shown in the record that the Plaintiff notified Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 of the termination of the instant lease through the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case. As such, the instant dam lease contract concluded between Defendant 2 and Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, who is the former, was terminated. Accordingly, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 have the duty to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff in collaboration with Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○ and the former.

2) Determination on Defendant 2 and Defendant 3’s defense, etc.

A) Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 did not pay a rent because the Plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice. Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff unilaterally raised the rent, which constitutes a de facto non-performance refusal. However, the grounds alleged by Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 are not sufficient to deem that there is a justifiable reason for the delinquency in rent solely on the grounds alleged by Defendant 2 and Defendant 3. Accordingly, this part of the allegation by Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 is rejected.

B) Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 asserted that Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 have the legitimate right to possess the building of this case since they had the right to retention or accessory purchase against Defendant 2 ○○○○○○○○. However, as seen earlier, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 cannot be deemed as having justifiable grounds for delinquency in rent solely on the grounds alleged by Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, we cannot accept the assertion that Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 have a legitimate right to possess the building.

C) The Defendants asserted to the effect that the instant database lease agreement is a legitimate sub-lease contract with the Plaintiff’s consent. Thus, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the said Defendants had a legitimate title to occupy the instant building.

If a lessee has sub-leased the object with the consent of the lessor, the sub-lessee assumes the obligation directly to the lessor (Article 630(1) of the Civil Act); and even a sub-leased with the consent of the lessor as the premise for the existence of the lease, if the lease is terminated due to the lessee’s default, the lessee cannot claim the right to the sub-leased unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu24939, Dec. 7, 1990). If the lessee sub-leases the object and the period of the sub-lease expires, the lessor may demand the sub-leased to return it directly by taking advantage of the right to request the return of the object based on the ownership of the lessor regardless of whether the sub-lease has obtained the consent of the lessor (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da23996, Dec. 12, 195); and the sub-lease and the lessee are jointly and severally liable to the lessor.

As seen earlier, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, regardless of whether or not the Plaintiff consented to the instant Open Holdings lease agreement, have the duty to jointly deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, regardless of whether or not the Plaintiff consented thereto. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit.

B. As to the land transfer and the request for removal of the instant parking lot

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 have a duty to remove the instant parking lot jointly with Defendant 1 ○○○○○○○○ and deliver the land specified in attached Table 1 to the Plaintiff.

2) Determination

First, there is no dispute between the parties as to whether Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 are obligated to remove the instant parking lot, and the fact that Defendant ○○○○○○ installed the instant parking lot, which is a structure, in part of the land indicated in the attached Table No. 1 of the Plaintiff’s attached Table No. 1 owned by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part, premised on Defendant 2 and Defendant 3’s legal and de facto right to dispose of the instant parking

Next, it is deemed that there is a duty to deliver the land indicated in attached list No. 1 to the owner of the building. Since a building cannot exist regardless of its site, and thus, the land which became the site of the building cannot be deemed as possession by the owner of the building, and it cannot be deemed that the possessor of the building occupies the site of the building (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da57935, Nov. 13, 2003, etc.); Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 merely constitute the possessor of the instant building and the instant parking lot, barring special circumstances, such as the Defendants having de facto right to dispose of the said building and the instant parking lot, it is difficult to view that the entire land indicated in attached Table No. 1, including the instant parking lot, is occupied by the owner of the building. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is

C. As to rent and claim for return of unjust enrichment

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that, jointly with Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, the Plaintiff is jointly and severally with Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, from August 11, 2015, to the completion date of delivery of each of the instant parking lot and each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the unpaid rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 6 million each month.

2) Determination

A) First, we examine whether Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 obtained consent from the Plaintiff is a legitimate sub-lessee.

(1) According to the evidence evidence Nos. 3 and 8, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to Defendant 2 by November 24, 2014, and refused to issue a tax invoice to Defendant 2. Nonparty 2 and Defendant 3, who jointly operated Defendant 2, forged the lease contract on the instant building between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 on September 25, 2014, and was prosecuted for exercising the said contract for the registration of △○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 subleted the instant building without the Plaintiff’s consent.

(2) However, on the other hand, the following facts are acknowledged in light of the respective descriptions, images, and arguments set forth in Gap evidence 6, 7, and Eul evidence 3, and 4. According to this, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff consented to the instant database lease agreement with the knowledge that the defendant 2 and defendant 3 was the operating entity of the Holdings, and the facts acknowledged in the above paragraph (1) are insufficient to reverse it and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the instant Venture loan agreement is a legitimate sub-lease agreement with the plaintiff's consent.

① On September 25, 2014, the Defendant ○○○○○ concluded the instant LAC with Defendant 2 on September 25, 2014, and subsequently closed ex officio on September 30, 2014.

② Since October 1, 2014, Defendant 2 registered his business from around October 1, 2014 to “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.

③ From October 10, 2014, Defendant 2 paid the Plaintiff monthly rent to Defendant 2 (△○○○○○○○○○○○○) account with the name of “Defendant 2”.

④ Nonparty 4, the vice president of the Plaintiff, and Nonparty 5, the representative director of the Plaintiff, requested Defendant 3 to pay the rent. Defendant 3 did not raise any objection at all on the fact that the payment was made to Defendant 2 (△○○○○○○○○○○○○○○) account when Defendant 3 confirmed the rent and sent a letter to the effect that the payment was made.

B) As to the unpaid rent and unjust enrichment of the rent party

As seen earlier, the rent under the instant lease agreement is KRW 49.5 million (including value-added tax). According to Article 630(1) of the Civil Act, a lessor may directly demand a sub-lessee to pay the rent. As such, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, jointly with Defendant ○○○○○, are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid rent calculated at the rate of KRW 49.5 million (including value-added tax) from August 11, 2015 until September 30, 2015 when the instant lease agreement was terminated.

In addition, even after the termination of the instant lease agreement, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 obtained profits from the use of the instant building and thereby inflicted damages on the Plaintiff at an equal amount. In ordinary cases, the amount of profit from the possession and use of real estate shall be equivalent to the rent. As such, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, jointly with Defendant ○○○○○ and jointly with the Plaintiff, have the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the money calculated at the rate of KRW 49.5 million (including value-added tax) equivalent to the monthly rent from October 1, 2015 to the day the delivery of the instant building is completed.

3) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit within the scope of recognition above.

4. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 4

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant building, and Defendant 4 is the owner of the instant building, and Defendant 4 is in possession and use of the instant Hague-based room. The fact that Defendant ○○○○○○ was in arrears from July 2015 to two or more vehicles, and the termination right of the instant lease contract was created upon the Plaintiff, the lessor of the instant building. The fact that the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease contract, was obvious on September 30, 2015, that the duplicate of the instant complaint, including the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease contract, was served on Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○. Accordingly, the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated on September 30, 2015 upon the Plaintiff’s right to terminate the lease contract. Since it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff notified Defendant 4 of the termination of the instant lease contract to Defendant 4 through the delivery of the copy of the complaint of the instant case, Defendant 4 had the obligation to sublet the instant lease contract between Defendant ○○○ and the instant.

B. Judgment on the defendant's defense

Defendant 4 asserts that, from the Plaintiff or Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○, Defendant 4 cannot deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff until a refund of KRW 200 million for lease deposit and KRW 30 million for facilities premium is made.

The sub-lease contract is terminated as a matter of course upon the termination of the lease contract. At this time, the lessor may directly demand the sub-lessee to return the object, but the sub-lessee cannot set up against the lessee a claim to return the object (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu24939, Dec. 7, 190, etc.). Therefore, the simultaneous performance defense based on the lease deposit claim against Defendant 4 to Defendant 4 ○○○○○ is without merit without further examining.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 4 is justified, and the claim against the defendant ○○○○, defendant 2, and defendant 3 is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and it is reasonable to accept it within the scope of the above recognition, and the rest of the claim is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Kim Byung-sik (Presiding Judge)