1. From 38,440,200 to 38,440,200 to 13, 2016, Defendant B’s real estate indicated in the separate sheet.

1. Following the facts of recognition are as follows: (a) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B led to confession pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act; (b) the Plaintiff and the Defendant C did not have any dispute, or (c) based on the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 2, the purport of the entire pleadings may be considered.

On August 24, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant B, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 1150,000,000, and the lease term from September 12, 2015 to September 12, 2017, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the following special agreement: “The lease agreement shall be paid by adding an amount equivalent to 3% of the monthly tax amount at the time of default on at least two occasions.”

B. The Plaintiff transferred the leased object of this case to Defendant B.

C. From January 2016, Defendant B did not pay the monthly rent under the instant lease agreement.

On May 3, 2016, the Plaintiff notified Defendant B of the termination of the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the delinquency in rent for at least two (2) years, and the said notification reached May 4, 2016.

E. Defendant C currently occupies and uses the leased object of this case.

F. Defendant C filed a lawsuit for invalidation of marriage with the Seoul Family Court 2016Dhap42282 (No. 2016ddan33547) on the ground that Defendant C filed a false report of marriage without Defendant C’s consent.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The lease contract of this case was terminated on the ground that the part of delivery of the leased object of this case was over the second period of not less than 2 months, and not only Defendant B who is the party to the lease of this case but also Defendant C who occupies and uses the leased object of this case is also entitled to claim for removal of disturbance as the owner of the leased object of this case.