1. The part against Defendant B and D in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as follows:

Defendant B and D are joint, 1.0

1. Basic facts

A. On October 12, 2004, the Plaintiff leased to Defendant B and D a building listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the lease deposit of KRW 45 million, monthly rent of KRW 3.5 million, and the lease term from October 12, 2004 to October 12, 2009.

B. On October 13, 2009, the Plaintiff is against Defendant B and D.

Subject to the same conditions as the port contract, the term of lease was set from October 13, 2009 to October 12, 2014 and renewed.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.

Defendant C registered the business as “E pharmacy” in the instant real estate on October 7, 2004 and operates the E pharmacy from that time.

From June 2013, Defendant B and D did not pay that monthly rent to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff expressed to Defendant B and D that the instant lease contract will be terminated on the grounds of delinquency in rent, and the duplicate of the instant complaint stating the said declaration of intent was served on Defendant D on October 25, 2013, and on November 28, 2013, respectively.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap's evidence 1 through 4, 6, 8; Eul's evidence 6 and 7; the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement is concluded as terminated on November 28, 2013 on the grounds that the duplicate of the complaint of this case, stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on the grounds of delinquency in rent by Defendant B and D, a co-resident, was terminated on November 28, 2013. Thus, the Defendants jointly have a duty to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff directly occupant of the instant real estate is asserting that Defendant C is either the former lessee or the occupied assistant. As long as Defendant C appears to have operated his/her pharmacy directly on the instant real estate, it is difficult to view that the instant lease agreement is merely the Defendant C, B, and D’s possession assistant, and it is difficult to view that Defendant C is merely the Defendant C, B, and D’s possession.