1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) amounting to KRW 30,000,000, June 2, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners possessing the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) at the ratio of 1/3 shares, respectively.

On January 18, 2011, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract with Defendant D to lease the instant building at KRW 30,000,000 for five years from June 1, 2011 to May 31, 2016, and KRW 1,00,000 for rent, for five years from June 1, 2011 to May 31, 201.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. Article 5 of the instant lease agreement provides, “If a lease contract is terminated, the lessee shall restore the building of this case to its original state and return it to the lessor. In such cases, the lessor shall return the deposit to the lessee, deduct the overdue rent or the amount of damages if any, and refund the balance,” and Paragraph 4 of the special agreement provides, “The inside and outside of the building shall be changed to the lessee’s discretion, install the facilities, and the lessee shall purchase home appliances, furnitures, and bedclothess.”

C. On January 31, 201, Defendant D’s mother, entered into a contract for the artificial insemination remodeling project necessary for the operation of the telecom in the instant building, and carried out construction until July 15, 201, while purchasing equipment necessary for the operation of the telecom, such as cooling, air conditioners, and bedclothes, and then running the telecom in the instant building under Defendant D’s name.

Plaintiff

A and C sent a notice of termination of the lease agreement to Defendant D on April 18, 2016, stating that the term of the instant lease agreement will expire on May 31, 2016, and that there is no intention to extend or renew the lease agreement.

E. The Defendants are continuing to occupy and use the instant building and operate the telecom until the date of closing the argument in the instant case.

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the claim of the principal lawsuit, the instant lease agreement is legitimate as the expiration of the period on May 31, 2016.