1. The Defendant’s real estate from KRW 18,906,296 to KRW 22, 2016 from the Plaintiffs’ respective real estate in the separate sheet from December 22, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are the owners of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant store”), and the Defendant is the lessee who concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiffs regarding the instant real estate.

B. On August 25, 2015, the Plaintiffs concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant and the instant store from September 1, 2015 to November 30, 2017, with a deposit of KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 8 million (excluding value-added tax, management fee, and value-added tax, KRW 7 million after April 1, 2016, and an agreement to pay the overdue interest rate of KRW 19 per annum in addition to the overdue interest rate of KRW 19 per annum).

C. Since March 1, 2016, the Defendant delayed to pay two or more vehicles, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement on June 15, 2016.

The defendant occupies the store of this case and uses it as a coffee specialty.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the fact that the Defendant’s duty to deliver the instant store was acknowledged, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on June 15, 2016 due to the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiffs, barring special circumstances.

In this regard, the defendant can not respond to the plaintiffs' requests for extradition until 100 million won of lease deposit is paid.

Domins, the following B.

As seen in paragraph (1), the Plaintiffs are obligated to return to the Defendant the remainder of KRW 18,906,296, which remains after deducting the overdue rent and unjust enrichment from the lease deposit from KRW 81,039,704, based on the time of the closing of argument in this case. Since the lessee’s obligation to return the object and the lessor’s obligation to return the deposit upon the termination of the lease are related to the simultaneous performance of the lessee’s obligation to return the object

B. The Defendant’s overdue charge, etc. 1.