1. The Defendants pay 88,057,000 won to each Plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3...

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 7-2, and Eul evidence 5.

On January 1, 2001, the Plaintiff leased approximately KRW 200,000,000,000 from the JJ for the purpose of owning a building on its ground, for the purpose of owning approximately KRW 8 million on its ground, 200,000,000 in rent, KRW 8.5 million in 2002, KRW 9 million in 2003, KRW 10 million in 2004, KRW 10 million in 2005, KRW 11 million in 2005, and the term of lease, five years in 205.

(hereinafter “Initial Lease Contract”). (b)

On March 28, 2001, after the conclusion of the first lease contract, the Plaintiff obtained approval for use by extending the area of 66 square meters of neighborhood living facilities in lightweight steel framed and neighborhood living facilities 206.20 square meters on the leased land (which seems to have been expanded separately from the existing building portion on the building ledger). On December 6, 2001, the Plaintiff obtained approval for use by extending the area of 8.5 square meters of neighborhood living facilities in light steel framed and steel framed in the above extended building. At present, the current status of each new building is the same as the attached Form No. 2, 2, 3, 4, 4 and 5.

C. On September 21, 2003, the J died, and the first lease contract is implicitly renewed. On October 5, 2009, the Plaintiff leased approximately KRW 155,000,000 per annum from the Defendants, the heir of J, for the purpose of owning a building on the ground, for the purpose of owning approximately 155 square meters of the instant land from the Defendants, who were the heir of J., the Plaintiff leased the instant land from January 1, 201 to December 31, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). D.

The Plaintiff filed a claim for the renewal of the instant lease agreement with the Defendants, but the Defendants expressed their intent to reject the renewal to the Plaintiff on February 5, 2015 of the instant reply issued on February 5, 2015.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim 1, the instant lease agreement is owned by the building.