1. The Defendants jointly indicate the status of each real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list to the Plaintiffs as well as the attached Form 2 building status.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiffs are married, and Defendant C and D are married, Defendant E.

On June 30, 2018, the Plaintiffs were co-owners of 1/2 shares of each of the respective real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 list, and leased (hereinafter “the lease of this case”) each of the above real estate by setting the lease deposit amount of 10% (excluding value-added tax, payment on July 1, 2018) and the lease period from July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2020 with each of the items listed in the separate sheet No. 5.95§³ (hereinafter “the lease of this case”).

(However, the lessee under the instant lease agreement entered as Defendant C). From July 12, 2018 to July 12, 2018, the Defendants registered a business in the name of Defendant C, and operated a restaurant in the name of “F” in the instant commercial building. On November 21, 2019, Defendant D added Defendant D as a joint business proprietor, but suspended its business from December 16, 2019.

[Grounds for recognition] Fact-finding, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number if there is a serial number) and the purport of the whole pleadings, the lease agreement of this case, which is asserted by the plaintiffs, is premised on the premise that the defendants should pay monthly rent while running their business in the commercial building of this case. From December 16, 2019 to December 16, 2019, the defendants are refusing to suspend the business in the commercial building of this case and refuse to pay monthly rent.

Therefore, the plaintiffs terminate the lease of this case by serving a copy of the complaint of this case on the grounds of the violation of the obligation to pay the rent of Defendant E or Defendant C, the actual lessee, and seek the delivery of the commercial building of this case as an exercise of the right to recover the commercial building of this case or the right to claim for removal of interference based on ownership.

Judgment

According to the above facts, the lease of this case was concluded on the premise that the Defendants would operate the business in the commercial building of this case and pay part of the sales amount as rent, and the Defendants on December 2019.