1. The defendant's successor to the plaintiffs:

(a) deliver the real estate listed in Appendix 1;

(b)2,630,100 Won and its corresponding;

Basic Facts

On March 29, 2013, the Plaintiffs leased real estate in attached Form 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant with the following content:

From April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2016: Deposits: 50,000 won per month: 3,300,000 won per month (excluding value-added tax) and payment by the end of each month, including the heating expenses for water and mineral deposits levied each month. The increased management expenses from April 2014 to April 3, 500,000 won (excluding value-added tax): The rent of KRW 1,20,000 per month and the late payment charges for management expenses: 5% per month from the date following the date of payment of the agreement to January 14, 2017, the Plaintiffs notified the Defendant of the termination of the lease on the grounds that the rent of more than three years and management expenses have been overdue.

On January 18, 2017, the succeeding intervenor succeeded to the status of the lessor pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act by transferring the ownership of the instant real estate to the succeeding intervenor (hereinafter the succeeding intervenor).

The Plaintiffs transferred to the succeeding Intervenor claims such as overdue rent, management fee, late payment charge, etc., and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on or before July 7, 2017.

Since the conclusion of the lease contract, the defendant occupies the real estate of this case for the notified telecom.

【In the absence of dispute on the grounds of recognition, the facts that the Defendant delayed the rent and management fee as stated in the attached Form 2, including Gap's 2, 4, 5, and 6 evidence, the purport of the entire pleadings, the late payment charge, and the late payment charge, including the late payment charge, are not disputed between the parties, and the defendant agreed to pay the late payment charge calculated at the rate of 5% per month from the date following the date of the agreement to the date of actual payment, as above. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the succeeding intervenor the late payment charge of the late payment charge and the late payment

On the other hand, the defendant's overdue charge agreement of 5% per month violates the Interest Limitation Act.