1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a) KRW 20,417,00 and from August 1, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the buildings listed in the separate sheet.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 21, 2013, the Plaintiffs leased the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant, with a deposit of KRW 30 million, KRW 1.7 million per month, and the period from June 21, 2013 to April 30, 2014.

Since then, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant have renewed the contract with the content that the vehicle is increased to KRW 1870,000 per month on May 1, 2014 and that the period is extended to April 30, 2015, and renewed the contract with the content that the period is extended to April 30, 2015 only by April 24, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

As of July 31, 2016, the Defendant delayed payment of KRW 20,417,000 for rent as of July 31, 2016, and on this ground, the duplicate of the instant complaint containing the Plaintiffs’ declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement reaches the Defendant on August 8, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, clear facts in records, Gap 1, 2, and 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. According to the facts found in the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was terminated on August 8, 2016 due to the Defendant’s delinquency in rent. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to receive from the Plaintiffs the remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the rent of KRW 20,417,00 in arrears from the deposit of KRW 30,000 and the rent of KRW 1,870,000 in monthly from August 1, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building, or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 1,870,00 in monthly, from the deposit of KRW 30,000, and at the same time, deliver the instant building to the Plaintiffs, and pay the said overdue rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 1,870,00.

3. Judgment on the defense

A. First, until April 2014, the Defendant used the instant building only for two months until the Plaintiff sought another shop from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff consented to the deduction of the rent from the deposit. As such, the Defendant used the instant building more for two months since it was impossible to seek a return even thereafter.