1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the annex 1 list;

(b) KRW 13,200,000 and April 2017.

1. There is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, or comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 through 5, all facts constituting the cause of the claim can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to the Plaintiff as stated in the Disposition No. 1 following the termination of the lease agreement (it can be deemed that the notice of termination was given by the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, even if there was no notice of termination on the content certification) and pay the Plaintiff the overdue rent or unjust enrichment equivalent

2. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants submitted only a formal reply, and asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case was a violation of the principle of prohibition, abuse of rights, and violation of the principle of good faith, while the Defendants’ claim of this case cannot be seen as a violation of the principle of good faith solely on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case did not constitute a violation of the principle of good faith. Accordingly, the Defendants’ claim cannot be accepted.

3. Full acceptance of the Plaintiff’s claim for conclusion