1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

1. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the Plaintiffs leased the instant building owned by the Plaintiffs to E on December 17, 2012 by setting the deposit amount of KRW 250 million; (b) the lease period from January 19, 2013 to January 18, 2015; (c) the Defendant, E, who entered into the said lease contract as E’s agent (hereinafter “instant lease contract”); and (d) the moving-in report of the instant building on January 21, 2013; and (c) from around that time, the fact that the Plaintiffs resided in the said building was either disputed between the parties or is recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of pleadings as indicated in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 1, and 2.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant lease agreement was terminated on January 18, 2015 by notifying the Defendant, an agent of E, of the refusal to renew the instant lease agreement, the Defendant, the possessor of the instant building, is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiffs.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant is only a tenant E of the instant lease agreement, but does not possess the instant building, and thus no obligation to comply with the Plaintiffs’ claim. 2) Even if the Defendant occupied the instant building, the Defendant or E was notified by the Plaintiffs of the refusal of renewal between six months and one month prior to the expiration of the lease term. Thus, the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed.

Therefore, since the defendant's possession is legitimate, there is no obligation to comply with the plaintiffs' claims.

3. Determination

A. Whether the Defendant is an occupant of the instant building or an occupied assistant is a person who has a socially subordinate relationship with the occupant, who directly exercises the power over the instant building but is not recognized as an occupation.

The defendant directly occupies the building of this case as the lessee E of the lease contract of this case, because he resides in the building of this case along with E.