1. The defendant,

(a) 4,726,484 Won, Plaintiff (Appointed), Appointed D, and E respectively; 3,150,989 Won and the foregoing.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The facts of recognition (1) around January 1, 1989, the Defendant leased a part of the size of 584m2 from the network G to the F of Gangseo-si (hereinafter “instant land”) in the rent of KRW 300,000,000 per annum, and resided in the housing on that part.

(2) Until March 25, 2015, the Defendant used the portion 1 in the instant land and the portion 2 in the order and the portion 516 square meters in total on board as a housing site, a marina, a parking lot, etc. indicated in the attached drawings, and thereafter used a total of 405 square meters in total 1 and 2 in the instant land as a housing site and a marina lot.

(3) On the other hand, the deceased on February 29, 2012: (a) succeeded to the Plaintiff, Appointer D, and E’s 2/9 shares; and (b) 3/9 shares of the wife C; (c) around July 17, 2012, the Plaintiff and the designated parties sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail demanding the Defendant to raise the rent of KRW 300,000 per annum from August 1, 2012 on the ground that the rent of KRW 300,000 per annum is too poor than the value of the instant land; and (d) around that time, the said content-certified mail was served on the Defendant.

(4) The rent from August 1, 2012 to July 31, 2013 for the instant land based on the result of the appraisal of rent is KRW 5,115,840 in total, and the rent from August 1, 2013 to July 31, 2014 in total is KRW 6,260,480 in total, and the rent from August 1, 2014 to March 25, 2015 in total is KRW 4,671,744 in total ( KRW 59,570 in monthly rent).

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3 (including each number), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the result of the appraiser H's fee appraisal, the result of the appraiser I's preliminary appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings]

(b)(1) If the rent previously agreed upon by a party has become unreasonable due to increase or decrease of the public charges imposed on the leased object or any other change in the economic situation, either party may demand of the other party to increase or decrease the rent for the future.

Therefore, there has been no change in rent for more than 20 years (Article 628 of the Civil Code), and the fact that the rent exceeds 20 times the agreed rent for the land of this case based on the rent appraisal as seen earlier.