1. The defendant shall deliver the buildings listed in the attached Form to the plaintiffs.

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

3.Paragraph 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 27, 2012, the Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant, under which the Plaintiffs leased the “instant store” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant store”) to the Defendant under the following conditions:

- Term of lease from February 1, 2012 to January 31, 2017 - KRW 700 million - Monthly rent 2,808 (excluding value-added tax) - KRW 3570,000 (excluding value-added tax) per month general management expenses - 4% compared to the preceding year from February 1, 2013, and 4% from February 1, 2014 to the preceding year;

B. As the Defendant did not pay monthly rent and management expenses for more than one year from March 2015, the Plaintiffs sent a content-certified mail to the Defendant on March 17, 2016, stating that the lease contract was terminated on the grounds of more than three years of rent, and around that time, the said written document reached the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the allegations and the above findings, the above lease contract was lawfully terminated by the plaintiff's notice of termination on the ground of rent delay, and thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the plaintiffs upon the termination of the lease contract.

The defendant asserts that since the conclusion of the lease agreement, the defendant invested enormous funds to use the store of this case and increased the objective value of the building, such as artificial construction and installation of various facilities, etc., and that the defendant has the right to refuse to deliver the store of this case until repayment of the beneficial cost is made from the plaintiffs.

The written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone are insufficient to recognize that the costs alleged by the Defendant to have spent are costs that increase objectively the value of the leased object itself, and all the costs alleged by the Defendant are leased by the Defendant.