1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a) deliver all the second and third floors of the buildings listed in the annex;

(b) KRW 5,000,000 and April 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 28, 2012, the Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a deposit for the lease deposit of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,000 (payment on January 28, 201) and from November 28, 2012 to November 27, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and around that time, delivered the instant building to the Defendant.

B. The Defendant did not pay KRW 9,000,000 until November 28, 2017, while continuously occupying and using the instant building upon renewal of the instant lease agreement.

Accordingly, on December 1, 2017, the Plaintiffs notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement on the ground of the non-payment of rent of the fourth half.

Since December 1, 2017, the defendant has continuously occupied and used the building of this case until then.

C. After that, the Defendant paid the Plaintiffs KRW 2,00,000,000 for rent around December 8, 2017, and KRW 2,00,000 for rent on January 11, 2018.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on or around December 1, 2017 according to the Plaintiffs’ declaration of intention to terminate the contract on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent. Since the Defendant continued to occupy and use the instant building until then on or after December 1, 2017, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiffs, and pay the amount equivalent to KRW 5,000,000 (= KRW 9,000,000 - KRW 2,00,000,000 on or around December 8, 2017, 2017) and the amount equivalent to KRW 0,000,000 from November 29, 2017 to February 20, 2000.

B. As to the judgment on the defendant's defense, the defendant's lease contract of this case in collusion with the plaintiffs "D" and leased the building of this case which is difficult to operate without being properly leased to the defendant, and thus constitutes a fraudulent contract. The defendant is therefore.