1. The Defendant calculated from the Plaintiffs to the delivery date of KRW 250,000 per month from September 24, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 17, 1996, the deceased E (the deceased on November 18, 2008, hereinafter “the deceased”) leased 200 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) out of D 2,631 square meters (the sum of 1,318 square meters was divided into F or G, before March 21, 2012 and February 1, 2016) to the Defendant for the construction of an office.

The Deceased and the Defendant agreed to construct a building on the instant land and pay taxes, and the construction permit was to be made in the name of the Deceased.

B. After obtaining a building permit under the name of the deceased on November 14, 1996, the Defendant started November 26, 1996 and completed the building indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) on November 26, 199, and obtained approval for use on January 24, 1997.

On April 26, 2001, the deceased completed registration of preservation of ownership of the building of this case.

C. On January 24, 1997, the date of approval for use of the building of this case, the deceased and the defendant concluded a lease agreement on the condition that deposit shall be set at KRW 30 million for 24 months with respect to the land and building of this case. On November 1, 2002, a lease agreement was concluded on the condition that deposit shall be paid at KRW 3 million per year in addition to the deposit.

Even after the death of the deceased, the lease agreement on the land and buildings of this case between the plaintiffs and the defendant has been implicitly renewed under the same condition, and the defendant paid all the rent from October 23, 2017 to September 23, 2017.

E. On December 20, 2016, the Plaintiffs sent a notice to the Defendant’s representative director H that the lease contract will be terminated, and the said notice reached around that time.

[Ground of Recognition: Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, 8, 9 (including partial number), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings (as stated in Gap evidence No. 10 against the above facts of recognition) are not trustable.

[Attachment]

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion, the lease contract on the land and building of this case reaches the defendant's notification of termination of the contract.