1. The defendant,

A. Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, each point is indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1.

1. Requests for delivery of a building;

A. The fact of recognition: (a) On March 4, 2013, E leased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant on the following terms: (a) the size of 141.74 square meters on the part (Ga) of the 1st floor store (hereinafter “instant store”) connected with the Defendant in sequence with each of the items in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1; (b) the lease deposit amount of KRW 40,000,000; (c) the rent of KRW 1,30,000 for each month; and (d) the lease period of KRW 1,30,000 for each month from March 15, 2013 to March 14, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”); and (c) around that time, the Defendant occupies and uses the instant building by being transferred to the present store.

② The Plaintiffs purchased the instant building from E on May 13, 2013, and the same year.

7. 15. Of the above buildings, Plaintiff A completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to Plaintiff A’s 2/4 shares, Plaintiff B, and C’s shares, respectively, and succeeded to lessor’s status from E.

③ Since July 15, 2013, the Defendant delayed the payment of the rent during the three-year period from July 15, 2013, the Plaintiff A, who represented by the Plaintiffs, sent to the Defendant a certificate that the instant lease contract was terminated on the grounds of the delinquency in rent, and thereafter, the said certificate reaches the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the instant lease contract was terminated on or around September 28, 2013, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiffs by reinstatement.

C. The defendant's argument 1) The summary of the defendant's argument is that the defendant refused to receive the rent by demanding the plaintiffs to pay the surcharge of KRW 130,000 for the rent and did not notify the account number for the rent. Thus, the defendant's failure to pay the rent is without fault of the defendant, and the cancellation of the contract for this reason is an abuse of rights. 2) The defendant's argument is based on the evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 5-1 to 5, and evidence No. 6 of the evidence No. 4-1, 5-2.