1. The Defendants jointly and severally deliver movable property from the Plaintiff from April 21, 2015 to the attached list.

① On March 5, 2014, the Plaintiff’s mother D entered into a lease agreement on behalf of the Defendants with the Defendants on a deposit of KRW 10 million with respect to the instant building; KRW 400,000 per month; and the period from March 20, 2014 to March 20, 2015; ② the Defendants paid the Plaintiff deposit of KRW 10,000 to the Plaintiff; ② the Defendants were occupying and using the said building until now after delivery; ③ the said lease agreement was renewed with the same content as that between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on March 20, 2015; however, the Defendants did not pay the following amounts on or after April 21, 2015; and the Plaintiff did not have any dispute between the parties to the termination of the lease agreement; or the purport of the evidence set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 4, respectively.

According to the above facts, the above lease contract was lawfully terminated by the plaintiff's notice of termination around March 29, 2016, on the ground of the defendants' delayed delay, and the defendants jointly and severally are obliged to receive the remainder of the money obtained from the plaintiff after deducting the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent or rent from the amount of KRW 10 million to April 21, 2015 to the date of completion of delivery of the building of this case from the amount of KRW 400,000 per month.

On February 26, 1991, the Defendants asserted that the payment of unfair bills by the Japanese bank was refused and the compulsory auction by the Korea Technology Finance Corporation caused financial difficulties. The Financial Supervisory Service filed a petition with the National Assembly due to the failure of the Japanese bank and the Korea Technology Finance Corporation to issue a corrective order, etc. on the above unfair acts, and that the Plaintiff could not be paid rent. However, the above reasons alone are insufficient to justify the Plaintiff’s delayed payment.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition.