1. The defendant is against the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party C:

(a) deliver each building listed in the separate sheet;

(b) on January 2, 2015;

1. Basic facts

A. On May 5, 2013, D entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”) with regard to each of the instant buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”), with a deposit of KRW 10 million, KRW 1100,000 per month, and the period of May 5, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and delivered each of the instant buildings to the Defendant on the same day.

B. On February 19, 2014, Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and Appointed C completed each registration of the transfer of ownership on the ground of “donation on February 17, 2014” with respect to each of the respective shares of 1/2 of the instant buildings.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant did not pay the rent of each of the instant buildings on June 5, 2013 and March 5, 2015, and the Plaintiffs expressed the Defendant’s intent to terminate the instant lease agreement by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint on the grounds of the two-year grace period.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated, the Defendant is obligated to deliver each of the buildings of this case to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Selection Party C, and as the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) seeks to pay from May 6, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of each of the buildings of this case, the amount equivalent to KRW 1,100,000 per month from May 6, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of each of the buildings.

3. The defendant's assertion is alleged that the defendant cannot deliver each of the buildings of this case until the payment of KRW 10 million as premium for each of the buildings of this case is made by the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated party C, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

4. If so, the plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating parties.