1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed with the Plaintiff KRW 39,50,000 and 5% per annum from May 1, 2018 to September 6, 2019.

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments of the Plaintiff 1 and E, on May 1, 2016, the Plaintiff and E agreed on the said lease agreement around March 2017, and around that time, the Plaintiff and E agreed on the following: (a) on May 1, 2016, the Plaintiff and E made payment of the F general steel structure building 1,964.38 square meters and the above land 2,548 square meters; (b) lease deposit amounting to KRW 50 million; (c) from May 1, 2016 to July 1, 2017; (d) the monthly renting to KRW 13.5 million; and (e) Defendant C delayed the said monthly rent; and (e) around that time, the Plaintiff and E paid the said money in installments by April 30, 2018.

According to the above facts, the above lease agreement was concluded between the plaintiff, E and the defendant C, and the shares of the plaintiff and E are presumed to be equal, so the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 1/2 of the plaintiff 1/2 of the outstanding monthly rent (i.e., KRW 79 million x 1/2 of the plaintiff x 1/2 of the outstanding monthly rent) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from May 1, 2018, which is the date following the due date of the payment, until September 6, 2019, which is the date of the decision of this case, and from September 6, 2019, by the next day, 12% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the date of the decision of this case.

The Plaintiff sought payment of the above monthly rent of KRW 79 million under the premise that the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement independently with Defendant C, but the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant C along with the foregoing ground. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s claim for the rent claim ( KRW 39.5 million) of E cannot be accepted.

On the premise that the plaintiff is a merchant, the plaintiff sought payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act, but there is no evidence to recognize that the plaintiff is a merchant.