1. The defendant points out to the plaintiffs each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the building on the ground of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 26, 2016, E died on September 26, 2016 while owning a building without permission (hereinafter “instant building”) of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, 1396 square meters and its ground, and jointly inherited the said land and buildings by the Plaintiffs, who are these children.

B. Meanwhile, from October 31, 1998 to the date, the Defendant occupied and used the portion of (A) store (hereinafter “instant store”) located in the instant building connected with each point of the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 in sequence, and operated the fishery products sales store of F in the said store.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant who occupies the store of this case, barring special circumstances, is obligated to deliver the above store to the plaintiffs who succeeded to the ownership of the above store.

B. The defendant's defense and the plaintiffs' re-defense 1) The defendant asserted that the above lease contract for the store of this case was a tenant who entered into with E, and that the above lease contract for the store of this case still has a legitimate right to possess the above store since it had been impliedly renewed. Thus, the health unit, the defendant's lease contract to lease the store of this case from E as of October 31, 1998 by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 3 million, monthly rent of KRW 750,000,000, monthly rent of the store of this case from E and October 31, 1999 (hereinafter "the lease of this case").

A) The fact that the contract was concluded, as seen earlier, that the Defendant continued to possess and use the above store even after the expiration of the above lease term, but the fact that the above lease contract was implicitly renewed due to E’s failure to raise any objection is no dispute between the parties. 2) As to this, the Plaintiffs are primarily and primarily, and the instant lease contract is one year in accordance with Article 639(1) of the Civil Act.