1. Defendant C: The Plaintiffs

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. 4,200,000 won and February 10, 2016

1. Claim against Defendant C

A. On July 10, 2015, the Plaintiffs indicated the claim, concluded a lease agreement with Defendant D on the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant store”) with Defendant C representing Defendant C, and the lease agreement was terminated by serving the instant complaint on the grounds that Defendant C, the lessee, was in arrears for at least three months.

Accordingly, Defendant C is obligated to return to the Plaintiffs the delivery of the instant store, the overdue rent, and the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.

(b) Judgment by publication based on recognition (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. The Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant D had the duty to leave the said store since Defendant D occupied the instant store.

According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 4, Defendant D entered into a lease agreement for the instant store on behalf of Defendant C on November 25, 2015, and Defendant D entered into a written confirmation for the payment of rent with the Plaintiffs on November 25, 2015.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant D directly possessed the instant store until now (the Defendant D seems to have retired from Tae Y or E at present). The Plaintiffs’ assertion against Defendant D is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant C are justified, and the claims against the defendant D are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.