1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a) Indication of the attached drawings, (1), (2), (3), and (4) of the first floor of the building indicated in the attached real estate;

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings as set out in Gap evidence 1, 2, 4 through 7, and evidence 3-1 and 3-2.

On June 25, 2004, the plaintiffs between husband and wife completed the registration of ownership transfer as to one half of each of the buildings indicated in the attached property indication.

B. On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 8,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 440,00, and the lease period from November 5, 2014 to November 5, 2016, with respect to the portion of KRW 12.58 square meters inboard connected each point in sequence with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. Around that time, the Defendant was operating an electronic tobacco retail store on delivery of the instant building, and did not pay monthly rent from February 5, 2015.

On September 16, 2015, the plaintiffs notified the defendant of his/her intention to terminate the above lease contract on the ground that the monthly payment is unpaid.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the above lease contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant is terminated by lawful termination of the contract, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiffs, and pay the monthly rent of KRW 3,960,000 (=440,000 x 9 months) from February 5, 2015 to November 4, 2015, and the monthly rent of KRW 440,00 calculated by the ratio of KRW 5,00 from November 5, 2015 to the completion of delivery of the building of this case.

B. As to this, the defendant alleged to the effect that he did not pay monthly rent due to the lease deposit paid to the plaintiffs. However, even if the lease deposit remains, it does not make a monthly payment. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.